Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Judgment for All

With the Supreme Court nomination of Sotomayor being discussed in the news, I cannot help think about Roe V. Wade, since this question always comes up in nomination hearings. Sotomayor does not make her opinion about abortion explicit. She thinks it is mute, since the court has already decided. But the Roe V. Wade decision has made the biggest impact ever on the world’s history. Therefore, it is not insignificant to discuss it. Despite there being a high court decision the question will always remain.

McCorvey, the defendant in Roe V. Wade is now a pro-life activist. She said there is something crucial we are missing, because Roe V. Wade has not been overturned. SHE thinks that there needs to be pro-life judges in the court order to help overturn the Supreme Court decision.

Quite frankly, abortion existed before the “landmark” court case Roe V. Wade, and would have continued without this case. However, now that legal precedence has been established in the courts we can not stop abortion by fighting it in the courts. They have made their decision. Since abortion has existed for a long time (it is mentioned in ancient texts), people will still want to do it—so long as murder exists so too will abortion.

We have prayed a lot about stopping abortion and clearly that grace only goes as far as the heart is open to it. We will continue to pray, but all humans have free will and all are fallen.

I think what we need is social norm-ing. We need a strong campaign flowing into the mainstream of society sending the message to the public. “Abortion ends a defenseless human life and that is wrong!” “There are alternatives to abortion.” I think the crucial component missing in the fight is money and an effective campaign. We need money to pay for the campaign to enter into the mainstream.

The Supreme Courts decision was that the U.S. Constitution does not provide for the government to stop an abortion. The decision and message went across the land that “We, as a government cannot stop this.” They were right. The power to stop abortion rests in heads of those who choose to abort their procreation. The decision is ultimately the mother’s. Breaking this decision down even further, if society tells her it is acceptable to take this action, then she will, and not feel badly about it. If society tells her that it is of bad moral character to make this decision and it comes with great risk to her own life, she still may make the bad decision, but she would be FAR less likely to do so.

So finally, our battle within the courts was fought and lost. Do not try anymore to enter this impenetrable fortress known as the Supreme Court. The weapon they hold is the Constitution in which they believe abortion is an inalienable freedom. Let us find new, battle ground—let us use new and different weapons.

Maybe I do not know anything about any of this (law, medicine, psychology) and I am showing my ignorance. But, there is no substitute for good character. Just the same as there is no effectual substitute for exercise and healthy eating. This has been haunting me. I keep thinking that abortion and euthanasia are not freedoms at all. There are simply quick fixes to very weighty, perplexing life events. They say, “I do not WANT to deal with this, so I am going to end it.”

Freedom was defined for Americans in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Very famously we never forget that what we seek is, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The first of these is “life,” and therefore, we must be a pro-life nation first and foremost in order to fulfill our national creed. This judgment made by the Supreme Court violates the first tenants of our nation. It’s not a state’s rights issue. It is an ethical quandary for all humanity seeking civil society.

May God have mercy on us all.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Political Impressions 3.0: Political Pettiness amongst the New Administration

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp

I read a long speech (the link is above) by former Vice President, Dick Cheney and afterwards I found myself touched and inspired by his words. The speech is mainly a rebuttal to OUR new presidential administration undermining the actions of OUR previous presidential administration. It was well worth taking the time to read it to the end. It's a little piece of God bless America.

If you are an American concerned about the well-being of OUR NATION, I highly recommend reading it. Whether you are on the left or the right of the argument, it is interesting to see it from the perspective of someone who was on the inside.

On a side note: In my opinion, after reading Cheney’s perspective, it makes the Obama administration look very petty.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"Be Not Afraid" to Defend Innocent Life Always

"AWESOME. I have never been more proud to be an AMERICAN Catholic. I'm always proud to be a Catholic. Love, AC"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/religion/chi-081111bishops,0,615284.story

I wanted to post the text as well, because someday this link will cease, but my blog will keep record.

Catholic bishops plan to forcefully confront Obama
By Manya Brachear Tribune staff reporter
8:38 PM CST, November 11, 2008
BALTIMORE - In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, America's Roman Catholic bishops vowed on Tuesday to accept no compromise for the sake of national unity until there is legal protection for the unborn.About 300 bishops, gathered in Baltimore for their national meeting, adopted a formal blessing for a child in the womb and advised Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference, as he began drafting a statement from the bishops to the incoming Obama administration. That document will call on the administration and Catholics who supported Obama to work to outlaw abortion."This is not a matter of political compromise or a matter of finding some way of common ground," said Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio. "It's a matter of absolutes."The bishops, long one of the leading political forces against abortion, spent the first part of Tuesday behind closed doors reportedly debating the merits of "Faithful Citizenship," a nuanced guide for Catholic voters issued last November.
Though the document made clear that "the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many," it also advised Catholics to weigh issues like poverty, war, the environment and human rights when choosing candidates.But some bishops said they were surprised to see Catholics cite the document as justification for selecting candidates--like Obama--who support abortion rights. A slim majority of the nation's Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate.Several bishops said that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights after Obama pledged to pass legislation that would overturn state's restrictions on abortion such as late-term abortion bans and requirements of parental consent."Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.Bishops Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said such legislation could threaten laws that allow health-care workers to refrain from carrying out procedures that violate their conscience, putting Catholic health care institutions in jeopardy."There are grave consequences," Paprocki said in an interview. "If Catholic hospitals were required by federal law to perform abortions, we'd have to close our hospitals.""I don't think I'm being alarmist," Paprocki told the bishops.George agreed that losing federal funds would put Catholic health care facilities, which make up a third of the nation's hospitals, out of business. Closing Catholic hospitals would put many patients seeking charitable care from those facilities at risk, he added.In crafting the statement to Obama, the bishops urged the cardinal to indicate a desire to work with the administration in areas of economic justice, immigration reform, health care for the poor and religious freedom. But they stressed the church's "intent on opposing evil" and "defense of the unborn child."They vowed to oppose any law or executive order that might loosen restrictions on abortion.They emphasized that efforts to advance abortion rights would "permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans and would be interpreted by many Catholics as an attack on the Church." They also urged Catholics in public life to be committed to the teachings of the church.Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., vice president-elect Joe Biden's home town, called on his brother bishops to be more punitive against Catholic officials who are "stridently anti-life.""I cannot have the vice president coming to Scranton and saying he learned his values there when those values are utterly against those of the Catholic Church," Martino said.Sister Jamie Phelps, a theologian at Xavier University in Louisiana, also served on Obama's National Catholic Advisory Board. She applauds the bishops for issuing the statement. But she said the Faithful Citizenship document made it clear that while the rights of an unborn child are a priority voters should consider a whole range of issues regarding the preservation and quality of life."That child has no voice if it's not the voice of the bishops and the voice of Catholics," she said. "But you can not pick and choose an intrinsic evil."George said the Faithful Citizenship document remains the guiding principle for Catholic voters. But he said future versions should be tweaked so portions are not "misused and misinterpreted." He said Catholics seemed to overlook the "whole question of proportionate reason."George has attributed Obama's victory to the economy, insisting that it was not a referendum on moral issues such as abortion rights.The bishops also approved a blessing on Tuesday devoted to a child in the womb, intended to support parents, unite parishes and foster respect for human life within society."Obviously it's a very tangible way for us to witness pastorally and sacramentally to the life of an unborn child," said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville. "It's very consistent with the priorities we've raised."

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Political Impressions 2.0 - Catholics Cannot Vote For Obama in Good Conscious

Catholics you cannot support a candidate who enforces the right to abortion and still call yourself Catholic. I am very weary of so-called Catholics telling me that all things considered, if they ignore that part of the candidate, he is the best candidate. It is not true on so many levels, but most of all, Obama is not the best candidate because of his position on abortion.

I have seen the websites out there that claim that even Catholics can reconcile their beliefs with Obama’s point of view because of his plan for social programs for women—daycare, healthcare for mother and child, abstinence programs, etc. However, it is a fallacy to believe that simply because these social welfare programs exist that they will reduce abortion. That supposes that the choice to have the child will be easier or more likely, or that people will have better ability to be moral.

In fact, having the types of social programs Obama proposes encourages social irresponsibility. There are responsibilities and consequences to the procreative act—the greatest we will encounter in our lifetime—and to remove some of those responsibilities and consequences encourages irresponsibility, i.e., more people will have intercourse casually with lessened risk of having to care for the health and well-being of partner or offspring.

Abortion and contraceptives exploit women more than anything we have seen since their legalization in our nation. A man can use a woman’s body with no consequences. He does not have to respect her or care for her. When he is done with her body, he can leave her. The woman does not even respect herself enough to demand that only one who will care for her and remain partnered with her may have her. Then when she is left vulnerable and with child, exploited, she makes a horrible decision to end this child’s life, because it would in someway damage her own. Further, there are health risks to these things that everyone seems to ignore. I cannot even go into all the reasons that a woman is exploited via abortion and contraceptives.

Obama said if my daughter made a mistake, I would not want her to be punished with a child. Say what! A child is a punishment. That means you, me, everyone was a punishment to our parents, because statistics are that most parents did not plan their pregnancy. That is the message you want your daughters to get? Children are only good and worthy of life if you desire them? (That’s heinous.)

It’s all disgusting. How can one truly justify abortion? Tell me how are you or I any different than we were at conception? Technically speaking, an embryo has the exact (EXACT) same genetic makeup as a full grown adult. The only difference between an adult and embryo is time and nutrition. If you deprive that from a newborn infant, then you are a heinous murderer. But, if you decide at 24 weeks gestation to deprive that, then there are no social or legal consequences placed upon your head. Further, if by some miracle a child survives this attempted murder by his/her mother, the law does not protect his/her life. (It’s heinous.)

I know. Obama does not “support” abortion. He just wants women to have the right to make that choice for themselves. He does not want them to have to suffer the consequences of their own actions, or the consequences of anyone else’s action either. He does not want the American society to have to be punished with an unwanted child. (It’s heinous.)

Do not vote Obama because you think you can reconcile your beliefs with his. You can’t justify this one.

DON’T VOTE OBAMA.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Friday, October 10, 2008

09 Presidential Political Impressions 1.1 – Marxism; or How This Election Will Transform Us to Socialism

I must admit that I am no scholar of Marx, but here we go in my attempt to simplify Marxist notions in reference to U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama. My goal here is that my mother-in-law will understand and finish reading this without her eyes glazing over (It’s okay if it happens; I already want to check out on this matter). I must admit Marxism is a bit complex to explain, or to put in a nutshell. But, here it is in a nutshell:

Marxism is not a type of political regime as one might think, but HOW a government reforms society to become a socialist governance. I emphasize here the metamorphosis of the society and the beliefs stemming the change. A Marxist Society attempts to overthrow *capitalism (*=our current state, in which we live and have a competitive free market), and in its place the government would control all major institutions and institute new, major, social programs, excepting religion.

Marxism in two nutshells—another emphasis of Marxism is the redistribution of wealth to even the division of different classes. The overall sentiment is that everyone is an equally important cog in the machine, and therefore, we as a society must take care of every cog equally.


Are you screwing up your face yet? I feel a bit dizzy already. It’s not really possible to put Marxism in a nutshell. Further, lots of people know that it has not worked out well for those nations who implemented Marxist ideals and therefore, it has a taboo nature attached to it. However, the above nutshell is the working knowledge that I am working with here in this post. If it makes you feel better, substitute the word Marxism with Socialist Democracy (which is an acceptable substitution, I looked it up).

I had heard knowledgeable and notable political analysts call Obama a Marxist for various reasons. I asked myself whether I thought the claims were unwarranted. They were not. Obama is a strict socialist. Here are a few of questions to ask when considering whether Obama is a Marxist (a.k.a. strong supporter of socialism).

1. Does he think there is a class struggle in America? Clearly, yes
2. Does he think that because there is a class struggle the government should step in with government funded social programs? Yes
3. Does he think that more of the private sector needs to be regulated by government? Yes

O’Reilly accused Obama of being Robin Hood Obama—taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Except that when Robin Hood stole from the rich he was taking from tyrannical land lords who unjustly taxed the land tenants. Obama just wants to tax the riche for simply being richer.
Further, Obama claimed that, “if I am sitting pretty, and you have got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say ‘I am going to pay a little bit more?’” That is not the free market, democratic, capitalist America we have come to know and love. It’s socialism.

Also in this interview,
O'REILLY: You are taking money away from the big earners, and you are giving it to people who don't. That's called "income redistribution." It's a socialist tenet.
BARACK OBAMA: What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have got to do. And we have got to help people who have a tough time affording college, so they can benefit like we have benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time, they don't have health care, people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills. And there are certain things we have got to do.

Guess what? I have learned that a college education is not worth as much as one would think. It’s been greatly devalued by the fact that many American workers have college educations; and that the quality of education is different now on many levels. Now, when I look at job advertisements, they all require a master’s degree or equivalent experience. I have found that those who chose to complete associates degrees have also faired much better in income earnings. One, A.A. degrees are more practical and career oriented. Two, people I know who received an associate degree spent two more years in the job market earning wages and gaining experience. Three, they did not spend between $20,000-$40,000 a year on a 4 year post-secondary education. Further, it is because of government education loans that universities have been able to increase enrollment, increase demand, and therefore increase their overall tuition, but not necessarily increase overall quality.

Okay. I’ll concede something major here. Do I think Barack Obama is a staunch Marxist? Heck no! It is clear that man loves capitalism. Sen. Obama could not be the self-made man that he is without it. He could not be the well-funded campaigner he is without capitalism. Barack Obama wants this nation to be a successful, capitalist nation full of hope and opportunity. He wants it to be the kind of nation that gave him all the opportunity he was afforded. BUT, he wants to do it by having the U.S. government take over some of America’s tested and true capitalist institutions. That part of his plan does not make sense to me.

Does he believe in socialism? His plans for America indicate yes. Let’s put this in the Marxist terminology used previously. Obama wants to TRANSFORM THE American governance so that the GOVERNMENT HAS MORE POWER TO CREATE socioeconomic EQUALITY BETWEEN THE CLASSES. You do not need me to rehash his plans. They are on his website. Now, you know where I am coming from, if you found my previous posting cryptic or inflammatory.

What I want for America is better quality Americans. In my plan for America, we do not simply bestow what is desired. It has to be earned. I hate to see Americans forget that this nation was humbly built by hard work and a competitive spirit. Our quality of living is already vastly better than what could have been dreamed 30 years ago. Lets not lose our competitive edge by relinquishing all control to government. Some government e is good, too much is bad.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Playing Pretend with the Economy


On a side note: I know. People who read my blog (that sounds weird to me) are waiting to hear the rest of my political impressions (that sounds conceded and probably is). But, I have had a busy week and I do not want to be hasty about what I say next. So, the next one is coming and it is coming soon. I plan to make it as simple as possible.

Moving on…there is something that has been bothering me for the past six months. It’s the economy. I understand very little about economics and I am wholeheartedly lost in this mess. I am lost even after watching a television program on current economics (can’t learn it in an hour folks). I learned that this kind of meltdown has happened to the U.S. six times before. Hmm, and we did not learn anything? I know things are bad. I know that it is very, very bad that many of our largest companies are bankrupt.

Here is where I am confused. How can congress just decide to bailout the American market with $700 million? It seems like fake money to me. Maybe that is why the rest of the world markets are tanking too. We just pumped a bunch of fake money into it.

Here is another thing that confuses me. Everywhere I look I see Americans continuing to live their lives of leisure, enjoying their families, putting food on their tables. That’s the most important thing. Americans are still putting food on the table. In the Great Depression people instantly lost their jobs, were homeless and starving. I do not think that is where we are going yet, because I have been watching this closely all year. For people with jobs the biggest sacrifice I have seen people make so far is trading down their transportation. Americans can do with a little humbling and remember our simpler roots.

Further the American dollar is still way higher than what I would expect it to be at this point.

Granted, I am still paying my bills, my debts (cursed college loans and college credit cards). If I did not have a job, I would not be able to do this. I would be part of the problem. But, like I have said, I am confused about this whole mess: how we got there and how it will be corrected, if we can correct it.

The economy is fake, to me anyway. What would happen if we wiped it all clean? Probably nothing would happen at this point. That is what is happening in my eyes. Headline: Today Global Markets Tank and Wipe Themselves Clean – The Market Will Start Over Fresh Next Year.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

’09 Presidential Political Impressions 1.0 - Marxism

After last Friday’s presidential debate I was not impressed by either candidate. By this point in presidential elections I am usually disenchanted and disheartened by both candidates and to be honest, nothing has changed. There comes a point when a mature individual realizes that neither candidate will be able to wave his or her magic wand and fix everything. However, please excuse the South Park reference from the 2000 election, at least it’s not between a douche and a terd sandwich.

Despite my disenchantment, my mind IS made up about this presidential election. There are a couple of things I must point out about the opponent. Firstly, Sen. Barack Obama has been accused to his face that he is a Marxist and he has not denied it, nor can he deny it. His intention is to transform this nation from a historically successful capitalist democracy to a socialist democracy a.k.a Marxist society. Everything Obama has proposed to “Change” the U.S.A. are Marxist tenets.

Marxism has proven, on a grand scale, to be an ineffective form of government and has crippled great and weak nations alike. This alone could be the greatest reason to vote for the other candidate, Sen. John McCain, who desires to move America back toward our capitalist roots. It is the very same capitalist government that our founding fathers intended us to have when they wrote the declaration of independence, declaring that we would not be crippled by British “taxation without representation.”

With the economic strife we Americans have suffered in recent times, it is clear we have already begun our transformation to a socialist democracy. In hindsight, the credit crisis was created not only by greed, but socialist tenets claiming that everyone ought to be able to get a credit line. The fact is that not everyone deserves credit. It’s earned through hard work. It used to be that you paid 20% down to buy a house on credit. That was ended with the idea that poor people deserve to own houses too. Look where that socialist idea has gotten us—global destruction of the credit market. Well done socialism. A vote for Obama is a vote for socialism, a vote for Marxism.

Upcoming Blog Posts:

- Examples from Obama’s Plan for America that are Marxist
- A Baby is a “Punishment” – Unless Your Pay Grade Allows for It
- Sen. McCain – A History of Service