Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hymn to Hitler
by Lori Kalner
In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.
In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was campaigned, promising "Change." He blamed the "Zionists" around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy would pay.
When he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him, by threats, lies, cover-ups, and generated disasters.
Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would. The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school.
My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.
I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children.
That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5
'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to The nations.
Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio.
‰oÏWith our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!"
Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were "no longer there." Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as "mercy killing" became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.
People whispered, "Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer sufferingÉAnd, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden." And so murder was called mercy.
The government took over private business. Industry and health care were "nationalized." (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized.
(Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)
The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change? Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction.
What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it.
Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.
When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them.
Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, "who could bear to read our suffering?"
Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord, Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.
I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah.
Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the "mercy killing" of tiny babies who are not wanted.
There are so few of us left to warn you. I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians.
Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote? Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible? Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth. I see them again now.
Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion. In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their "tax exempt" status.
And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you "Cling to your religionÉ"
But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked and condemned by the Left in America.
I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble.
I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school.
(Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)
Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barrack Obama is elected. I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived.
The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!
"Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak.
Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!"
I am in Prayer for you, and for the Church! Spoken to you in the authority of Jesus the Christ, the Name Above All Names,
Prior to the US Election
From October 27 to November. 4.
Please forward this email to as many as possible…
Whether you plan to vote for John McCain, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or no one at all.
Join us in the Rosary Novena and in the daily recitation of
a special approved prayer against “revolutionary men”.
• Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in history.
Catholic Bishop Arthur Serratelli of
• Obama vows to fight for the legalization of homosexual marriages and for hate crimes legislation.
In June, Obama sent a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club saying he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” US military policy. In 2004, Obama sent a letter to a “gay” newspaper in
• Even the Wall Street Journal is concerned about an Obama win.
An WSJ article entitled “A Liberal Supermajority” warns of “one of the most profound political ideological shifts in US History. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’s since 1965 or 1933” and warned that an Obama victory would unleash “a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy.” WSJ also noted that an Obama presidency would result in regulatory overkill in the business world; substantial tax hikes; a “green” tax to repel so-called “climate change’; and the “Fairness Doctrine” that would effectively silent conservative ralk radio and political opposition.
Catholics throughout the nation (such as Father John Corapi) are organizing Rosary novena’s on the nine-days prior to election day. Let us unite all of our payers to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The battle of Lepanto was won not so much by superior firepower, but by Catholics praying the rosary to defeat the enemies of God.
PLEASE ALSO RECITE ON EACH DAY OF THE NOVENA
THIS PRAYER APPROVED BY THE CHURCH
Prayer given by Our Lord to Sister Marie de Sainte Pierre (1816-1848 – Apostle
of the Holy Face of Jesus), to divide and conquer revolutionary men.
Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and all the instruments of His Holy Passion that Thou mayest put division in the camp of Thine enemies, for as Thy beloved Son hath said, "a kingdom divided against itself shall fail".
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Tridentine) will be offered for - and in union with — all those who take part in the Novena on October 27 and November 4.
If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president.
Our Constitution establishes a constitutional republic, a system in which, within the broad bounds that the Constitution sets forth, policy issues are to be determined by American citizens through their elected representatives at the state (including local) and national levels. The great battle over the Supreme Court in recent decades is between the proponents of original meaning and judicial restraint, on the one hand, and judicial activists, or advocates of living constitutionalism, on the other. Proponents of original meaning and judicial restraint embrace an interpretive methodology that respects the vast realm of representative government. Advocates of judicial activism and living constitutionalism, by contrast, redefine the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. They willy-nilly invent rights that aren’t in the Constitution and ignore those that are. Theirs is a philosophy of government by judiciary, with the operations of representative government confined to those matters that the justices aren’t quite ready yet to take charge of or that they think don’t matter very much.
If you’ve been paying attention to the media’s scant coverage of the impact of the presidential election on the Supreme Court, you’ve been hearing that we currently have either a “conservative” Court or a Court delicately balanced between its “liberal” and “conservative” wings. Electing Obama as president is unlikely to change anything, you’re told, because he’d probably just be replacing liberal justices. The real threat, Obama himself tells us, is that John McCain would appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and thereby (supposedly) make abortion illegal.
Wrong on all counts.
1. For starters, if we are to use crude political terms, the current Supreme Court is markedly to the left of the American public. The Court has a working majority of five living-constitutionalists. Four of them — Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer — consistently engage in liberal judicial activism, and a fifth, Kennedy, frequently does.
For evidence of how liberal the current Court is, consider the biggest cases of last term. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Court ruled 5-4 (with the five living-constitutionalists in the majority) that aliens detained by the U.S. military abroad as enemy combatants have a constitutional habeas right to challenge their detention in American courts. In so ruling, the Court struck down the statutory framework that Congress and the President had crafted. I’ll set aside here an extended discussion of how wildly wrong the Court’s ruling was. For present purposes — i.e., showing that the Court is well to the left of the American public — I’ll simply note the public’s strong disapproval of it (by a margin of 61-34 in a Washington Post poll).
In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the same five justices formed the majority that ruled that the death penalty for the crime of raping a child always violates the Eighth Amendment — “no matter,” as Justice Alito put it in his dissent, “how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.” Again, let’s set aside how badly reasoned the majority opinion was. Even Barack Obama recognized how poorly the majority opinion reflected the public consensus that it purported to determine, as he rushed to assert his disagreement with the Court. A Court to the left of where Barack Obama claims to be on a telltale case like this cannot be described as conservative or moderate.
Finally, consider by contrast the one big “conservative” victory of the term, the recognition of individual Second Amendment rights in District of Columbia v. Heller. This decision was so popular with the public that Barack Obama tried to make it appear that he agreed with it.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that public approval is the measure of whether a ruling is correct or not. On the contrary, it has no bearing on that important question. Rather, I am using it here only for its bearing on the very different question whether the Court, in crude political terms, is liberal or conservative.
If we look to the future and take seriously the positions and principles that the five living-constitutionalists have already adopted, the Court, as it is now composed, may very well have five votes for, say, the imposition of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, five votes for stripping “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and for complete secularization of the public square, five votes for continuing to abolish the death penalty on the installment plan, five votes for selectively importing into the Court’s interpretation of the American Constitution the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites, five votes for further judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers, and five votes for the invention of a constitutional right to human cloning.
2. There’s no solace in the prospect that Obama would likely be replacing only liberal justices during his first term. First, as the examples in the preceding paragraph show, the Court as currently composed threatens further incursions on the realm of representative government. The Court urgently needs to be improved. Second, it’s a foolish bet to rely on probabilities. One never knows when a good justice will step down or die.
Third, the Left sees even President Clinton’s appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, as too mild and moderate. Obama’s supporters are clamoring for “liberal lions” who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag, and a look at some of their leading contenders, like Yale law school dean Harold Koh (champion of judicial transnationalism and transgenderism), Massaschusetts governor Deval Patrick (a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist), and law professor Cass Sunstein (advocate of judicial invention of a “second Bill of Rights” on welfare, employment, and other Nanny State mandates), shows that there is lots of room for Obama’s nominees to be even worse than Ginsburg and Breyer. And no matter how bad they are, you can count on their being confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate. Obama’s own record and rhetoric (which I discuss more fully in this essay) make clear that he will seek left-wing judicial activists who will indulge their passions, not justices who will make their rulings with dispassion.
Fourth, the next president will be the odds-on favorite to be re-elected in 2012. Over the next two presidential terms, a single president could well replace five or six justices. If a President Obama replaces Justice Scalia (who will be 80 in 2016), the resulting Court would have six votes for all sorts of constitutional mayhem. If he replaces Justice Kennedy (also 80 in 2016), the pivotal vote on the Court will move even further left.
3. I hope very much that a President McCain appoints justices who will help to overturn Roe v. Wade, and although it won’t be easy to get good nominees confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate, I think that it’s definitely possible. Overturning Roe, of course, wouldn’t make abortion illegal. Rather, it would restore to the citizens of each state the power to establish abortion policy through their elected representatives — and to revisit that policy over time. That’s the system our Constitution established, and it’s the system that all citizens faithful to our Constitution should welcome. The democratic processes may at times be messy and contentious, but they offer the only real hope of working out a consensus on abortion policy.
Roe v. Wade has corrupted and distorted American politics and Supreme Court decisionmaking for 35 years. All Americans, irrespective of their positions on abortion policy, should welcome its long-overdue demise.
* * *
With its five living-constitutionalists, the Supreme Court is well to the left of the American public and threatens to engage in yet more wild acts of liberal judicial activism. The Court urgently needs to be transformed into an institution that practices judicial restraint. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. Our system of representative government, already under siege, would be lucky to survive an Obama presidency.
— Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a regular contributor to NRO’s “Bench Memos” blog. The views he expresses here are his own only and are not to be imputed to EPPC.
Sorry there hasn't been too much Catholic stuff going on here, but I'm all riled up with this election cycle.
From The Corner on National Review Online:
The Second Bill of Rights [Mark Steyn]
Re Sunstein, Obama and Euro-style rights, they may be here sooner than you think:
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
[UPDATE: A reader writes:
I think adding "The right to an attractive and compatible mate who satisfies one's physical desires" to the list would generate a lot of enthusiasm for socialism among unattractive people. If Paul is entitled to some or all of Peter's earnings, why shouldn't he be entitled to some or all of Paula's assets as well?
Almost right. To be truly "redistributive", it should read "the right to attractive and compatible mate(s)." Another reader felt the US Second Bill of Rights rang a vague bell:Etc.]
Article 40. Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society...Article 41. Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure...The length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Among the most important titles we have in the Catholic Church for the Blessed Virgin Mary are Our Lady of Victory and Our Lady of the Rosary. These titles can be traced back to one of the most decisive times in the history of the world and Christendom. The Battle of Lepanto took place on October 7 (date of feast of Our Lady of Rosary), 1571. This proved to be the most crucial battle for the Christian forces against the radical Muslim navy of Turkey. Pope Pius V led a procession around St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City praying the Rosary. He showed true pastoral leadership in recognizing the danger posed to Christendom by the radical Muslim forces, and in using the means necessary to defeat it. Spiritual battles require spiritual weapons, and this more than anything was a battle that had its origins in the spiritual order—a true battle between good and evil.
Today we have a similar spiritual battle in progress—a battle between the forces of good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lies, life and death. If we do not soon stop the genocide of abortion in the United States, we shall run the course of all those that prove by their actions that they are enemies of God—total collapse, economic, social, and national. The moral demise of a nation results in the ultimate demise of a nation. God is not a disinterested spectator to the affairs of man. Life begins at conception. This is an unalterable formal teaching of the Catholic Church. If you do not accept this you are a heretic in plain English. A single abortion is homicide. The more than 48,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade in the United States constitute genocide by definition. The group singled out for death—unwanted, unborn children.
No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion.
I strongly urge every one of you to make a Novena and pray the Rosary to Our Lady of Victory between October 27th and Election Day, November 4th. Pray that God’s will be done and the most innocent and utterly vulnerable of our brothers and sisters will be protected from this barbaric and grossly sinful blight on society that is abortion. No woman, and no man, has the right to choose to murder an innocent human being.
May God grant us the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and counsel to form our conscience in accordance with authentic Catholic teaching, and then vote that well‐formed Catholic conscience.
Please copy, email, link and distribute this article freely.God Bless You
Fr. John Corapi
Colin Powell made news last week with his endorsement of Barack Obama for President. The idea, I guess, is that Colin Powell is a great and objective judge of character and we should all listen to him when he says that Obama will do a great job as President. There's no evidence that he's ever done anything that would constitute evidence that he will be a competent chief executive for the country and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, you understand, this is one of those Powell-looked-into-his-soul-and-so-please-trust-his-judgment things.
WASHINGTON - One of the nation's best-known retired Army generals, Colin Powell, described Sen. Ted Stevens in court today as a "trusted individual" and a man with a "sterling" reputation.
"He was someone whose word you could rely on," said Powell, secretary of state in President Bush's first term, who self-deprecatingly described himself as someone who retired as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then "dabbled a bit in diplomacy."The former secretary of state said he had known Stevens for 25 years, mostly in the senator's role as the top defense appropriator on a Senate defense appropriations committee. In Stevens, "I had a guy who would tell me when I was off base, he would tell me when I had no clothes on, figuratively, that is, and would tell me when I was right and go for it," Powell said. "He's a guy who, as we said in the infantry, we would take on a long patrol."
When asked outside of the courtroom after his testimony whether Stevens asked him personally to testify to his character, Powell said he couldn't recall if it was the senator or one of his lawyers. But he didn't think twice about testifying, Powell said.
"Not at all," he said, snapping his fingers to signify it was a snap decision.
That's right, folks, Obama supporter Colin Powell vouched for the character for truthfulness of a man, less than three weeks before he was convicted of multiple counts of being a criminal liar.
To me, nothing says "trustworthy" and "reliable" like being convicted of seven felony counts of making false statements. It's very strange to me: it appears that 12 jurors heard Colin Powell's testimony about his judgment of Ted Stevens's character and unanimously disregarded it and convicted the guy about whom Powell was testifying of repeatedly lying. In light of this, one wonders why Powell's judgment about Obama's character is worth any of the air time it has been given.
By SCOTT W. JOHNSON
Barack Obama has proved the greatest fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. His campaign has raised more than $600 million - $150 million in September alone. But the campaign has also failed to adopt standard protections against fraudulent giving.
The average contribution to Obama in September was just under $86. And federal law only requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.
The Federal Election Commission says the Obama campaign has reported well over $200 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only a small portion of that sum is attributable to donors the Obama campaign has disclosed.
No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors.
The campaign's records reveal big contributors with names like "Doodad Pro" (employer: "Loving," profession: "You") and "Good Will" (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. Other reports have suggested that some donations come from overseas - raising the question of whether Obama is accepting donations from foreigners, another violation of federal law.
All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.
He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."
He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.
He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.
Others repeated "John Galt's" experiment last week, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.
What accounts for the Obama campaign's acceptance of these fraudulent donations? Most merchants selling goods and services use the basic Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign uses AVS and provides a searchable database of all donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign apparently has chosen not to use the AVS system to screen donations.
"Della Ware" contacted The New York Times to report her experience contributing under a fictitious name and address ("12345 No Way") to the Obama campaign, while her contribution was rejected by the McCain campaign. Times reporter Michael Luo verified "Della Ware's" account and reported it online at the Times' campaign blog. But Luo missed the story's point.
"To be fair to the Obama campaign," he wrote, its "officials have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount."
But the Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits.
Obama backers making such contributions may not be worried that "something wrong" will be detected if they have no intention of complaining about it.
According to journalist Kenneth Timmerman, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently - in contrast not just with McCain but also with Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign required US citizens living abroad to fax copies of their passports before it would accept donations. By contrast, foreign donors to Obama can just use credit cards and false addresses.
Why has the Obama campaign chosen to operate without the basic automated credit-card controls that would prevent or hamper fraud and illegal contributions? Has it made a conscious decision to assist the evasion of federal campaign law or worry about it after it has had the use of the money?
It's hard to see any other motive.
Scott W. Johnson is a Minneapolis attorney and contributor to the blog Power Line (power lineblog.com).
Friday, October 24, 2008
Hey females! Are you ready to fight on the front lines and register for a draft?
That’s what Hussein Obama is pushing. This should concern any parent or female under the age of 30.
In two separate interviews last week, Joe Biden said if Barack Obama becomes Preident we will be attacked, and even though we may not like the actions taken by an Obama administration, Biden urged Americans to stand by them.
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said … we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden warned.
A "generated crisis"? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Tehran? Terrorists cells in our own country aided by our enemies? This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports:
Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft.
We are in a battle, like none other in History, because our enemies are not defined by a country or state, but rather the ideology of Islam, and their declared Holy War against America, the west, and Israel.
The two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn’t think women should have to register.
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Obama not only wants to include females in a draft, but wants to change combat rules and regulations to put females on the front lines of battle.
According to his campaign, Mr. McCain supports the current Department of Defense restrictions on women in combat units, including armor, field artillery and special forces.
In the CNN Democratic debate, Obama said women should be expected to register with the Selective Service, comparing the role of women to black soldiers and airmen who served during World War II, when the armed forces were still segregated.
"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal."..
Obama said, on requiring females to register for service -- “I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."
Elaine Donnelly, a former member of President Bill Clinton's Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, dismissed Mr. Obama's comparison of the roles of women and black soldiers, arguing that males and females, in general, aren't equal on the battlefield.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
In writing about Barack Obama's radical abortion beliefs which includes infanticide I began to detect a recurring wordspeak. I noticed that folks were saying the President doesn't have anything to do with abortion and that the Republicans really didn't do anything about abortion anyway. The why is easily discerned. Obama loses out with abortion big time, so the spin is an attempt to portray that Obama's radical pro-abortion position doesn't matter.
But have the Republicans done anything about abortion? The answer is a resounding YES!
First, let's remember that we are in the shadow of 9/11, and in a war against terrorism. The aftermath of the attacks on our country not only sent us into war, but our economy took a downturn. There was a lot on the President's plate.
It's important to have realistic expectations. Because abortion is so entrenched in our culture, we must view progress one step at a time. Also, we must ask ourselves, "What would a Democratic administration do?"
But lets look at some of the Republican accomplishments during the past eight years in a time of war:
1) One of the first things Bush accomplished was to reinstate the ban regarding funding abortions through international organizations. These are family planning organizations that promote abortion as an alternative. By removing funding, it took the U.S. government out of the international abortion business, which affected millions of abortions annually.
Why did Bush have to reinstate this ban? Because Bill Clinton removed it and for eight years the US funded abortions internationally. I wonder - how many babies died because of that one act?
One of Obama's first actions if elected President would be to remove this ban. By one stroke of the pen millions of unborn babies would lose their lives annually.
2) On August 5th 2002, President Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This is legislation that protects a baby surviving an abortion under federal law with a right to life. Before this law babies surviving an abortion were left to die.
While a state senator of Illinois, Barack Obama voted against this bill and thus preferred to protect infanticide instead of the surviving baby.
3) On November 5th 2003, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act into law. This ended the barbaric practice of inserting a tool into the head of a partially born baby and sucking his/her brains out.
The Partial birth abortion ban not only saved 5,000 lives per year, but it signaled the beginning of the end of Roe. This is actually the first successful challenge upheld by the Supreme Court to abortion on demand, and I see the next step as to limiting abortion to the first term of pregnancy.
It is interesting to note that the Republican House and Senate actually approved the bill three times during the Clinton administration, only to be vetoed by President Clinton each time.
What about Barack Obama? He opposed this bill.
4) Bush's Supreme Court appointees in Roberts and Alito are of the highest caliber and solidly pro-life. This in itself is a significant achievement, with Roberts as the head of the Court. This accomplishment is worth it's weight in gold alone, affecting the court for decades.
It must be noted that after the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was signed into law, it was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. The Bill was upheld by a vote of 5-4, making Roberts and Alito essential to it's success.
Barack Obama made it explicitly clear that he would not have nominated Roberts, Alito, and Scalia for that matter. During the Saddleback debate he even had the audacity to criticize Clarence Thomas for his lack of experience. Hmmm, Obama criticizing Thomas for lack of experience. Now that's something to think about!
Reagan appointed Scalia and Kennedy, and Bush1 appointed Thomas. Oh, by the way, who did Bill Clinton appoint? Darth Vader. Sorry, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
5) On April 1st 2004, after a one vote victory in the Senate, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes a criminal act against an unborn baby. We all remember Laci Peterson and her unborn son Conner - there were two murders here, not just one.
It is interesting to note that during the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry interrupted his Presidential campaign to go Washington to vote against this bill. It is interesting to note that he was not for this bill before he voted against it.
The significance of this bill is that it recognizes the unborn as a person.
6) Even now, the Bush administration is working to redefine abortion as to include contraceptives that cause an abortion. This will directly impact the use of government funds in providing for abortion inducing contraceptives.
7) It is also important to note that the Republicans also have protected the unborn from pro-choice legislation.
Which brings me to Obama. In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion.
Obama has declared a War of Terror on the unborn. Simply put, if the House and Senate remains Democratic, we need a Republican president to protect the unborn from Obama.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Barack Obama campaign is beginning to look a lot like the middle stages of the Bill Clinton administration: scandals everywhere, but nothing that sticks. If Sen. John McCain continues to run his Bob Dole-style campaign, one of these scandals will have to come to the forefront and constitute an “October Surprise” for Sen. Obama.
The latest to break is the alleged voter registration fraud concerning an Obama-connected group called ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Sen. Obama started his political career as a community organizer -- even doing some training work for ACORN -- so people who’ve wondered what community organizing is all about need only follow this story.
ACORN is registering likely Democrats to vote. It doesn’t seem to matter whether a person is real, fictional, already registered, or dead -- ACORN wants to sign him up. In Cleveland, voters have told authorities that they have been hounded by the organization, even if they’ve made it clear that they are already registered. 21 year-old Lateala Goins told the New York Post, “You can tell them you are registered as many times as you want; they do not care. They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home.” In Nevada, officials raided the ACORN office, accusing the group of signing up the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.
The Obama campaign has donated $800,000 to ACORN to support its activities and the group has endorsed him for president. But will the story have enough legs to damage Obama? Not likely, because the media isn’t interested. FOX News and, to some extent, CNN have covered it. But it hasn’t gotten much play in newspapers.
Could Obama’s alliances with unsavory people be his undoing? The anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger are effectively nuzzled until after election, and whatever chickens they might have brought forth have already roosted. Obama sustained minor damage but recovered.
But to many people, Obama did not just “associate” with such people; he was “allied” with them. That’s why his connection with the domestic terrorist William Ayers has resonated to some extent.
The campaign talking point that every Democrat repeats ad nauseum is that Obama was only 8 years old when Ayers and his terrorist wife Bernadette Dohrn were involved in such activities as bombing the U. S. Capitol and the Pentagon. On “Meet the Press,” moderator Tom Brokaw refers to Ayers as an “education reformer.” The truth is that Ayers gave Obama his only executive experience by tabbing him to distribute $50 million in grant money -- money to be used by groups like ACORN to radicalize students.
But somehow this is too complicated for the people to understand. After all, Obama was just 8 years old.
Well, he wasn’t 8 when he met Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Rezko, a convicted felon, is behind bars and may be singing like a canary to federal prosecutors. What he’s telling them isn’t precisely known because it’s all secret. But Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich might have reason to worry; so might Obama. It just depends on what it takes for Rezko to get a deal with the feds. And, of course, it depends on what’s to tell. Perhaps Rezko’s fundraising and real estate dealings with Obama were all on the up and up. Not likely, but maybe.
And maybe the October Surprise will involve Obama’s on-line fundraising where the numbers of fake names and over-the-limits donations are skyrocketing. The Republican National Committee has asked the FEC to investigate evidence of illegal foreign influence, but time is running short.
Maybe, if there is a surprise, it will be the result of some major media investigation of Obama’s relationship with the bloody Prime Minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga. WBBM-TV in Chicago ran a report that had Obama criticizing Kenyan President Kibaki during a 2006 Senate fact-finding trip to Kenya. It would be interesting to know more about Obama’s ties to Odinga, who has a power-sharing agreement with Kibaki and who named his son “Fidel” after you-know-who. But no major newspaper or network is checking into the story so far as we know.
Maybe the October Surprise will be that John McCain takes the advice of his own supporters and forcefully goes after Sen. Obama on his record, his policies and his alliances. Now THAT would be a surprise.
Finally all these liberal, document interpreting, baby killing liberals got a bit of it from the Bishop!
Lately there have been "catholics" who think they know more than the Church. They read ambiguously written documents by the USCCB and think they have the right to interpret them to suit the candidate they support. And then they try to pass their opinions off as official Church teaching.
Well, Bishop Martino showed up unannounced at a "presidential election" forum at St. John's Church in Honesdale. And he blasted them for promoting baby killing candidates, and for personal interpretations of USCCB documents.
Let me say a few words about the USCCB first.
There is an invention that came out of Vatican II called collegiality, in which the Bishops of the world were encourgaed to start their own conferences. Now these conferences are a little to big for their collective britches and each one assumes the role of a mini-Vatican. So whereas before VII there was one Church with the Vicar of Christ as its head, today we have several little Catholic Churches with whoever is voted into the head of that particular conference.
And they think they are on equal footing with the Pope.
So the USCCB collectively issue statements to the Catholic Church in America.
One such document is the ultra-ambiguous "Faithful Citizenship". It reads "...a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position." So one sees that the USCCB makes church teaching not so clear by stating one can vote for a pro-death candidate if the issue of pro-death is not the sole reason.
Nice of the Bishops to give an easy out for people to vote democrat.
Of course, that is not Church teaching.
Bishop Martino on the other hand, wrote a pastoral letter dated September 30 where he called for Catholics in his diocese, where he is the sole interpretor of Church teaching, to oppose candidates supporting abortion rights. He quoted his predecessor Bishop Timlin "...the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue."
At the forum, the Bishop is quoted as having said “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me. The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
Of course, the dissenters are accusing the Bishop of breaking with the USCCB, if there is such a thing.
Get this in your heads liberals.
The Bishop is the sole interpretor of Church teaching in this diocese, not the USCCB, not Joey Biden, not Douglas Kmiec, not me and not you.
If you can't accept that, go join one of the thousands of sects that have sprouted up since Martin Luther posted his nonsense on the Church doors. I'm sure you will be much happier there.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
During Sarah Palin's rally in Scranton the other day, Scranton Times Reporter Gretchen M. Wintermantel and former Paul Kanjorski press secretary claimed someone yelled "Kill him!" when Chris Hackett mentioned Barry the Butcher.
Of course, the national media jumped all over the uncouth McCain supporters.
Where was the media this past weekend during an Obama rally in Philadelphia?
In case you can't read the writing on the t-shirts above, it says "Sarah Palin is a cunt".
These subhumans calling Sarah Palin a cunt would be the equivalent of a group of protesters calling Obama a nigger. If that ever happened you know we would be seeing it for weeks replayed endlessly with discussions about how the race is still close because Americans are racist.
This pisses me off to no end. If anyone sees this reported anywhere, let me know.
People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama's concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.
And John McCain could have called him on it - but didn't.
What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
Obama has made several points, which we should recount.
In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.
Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.
This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.
Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, "even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law."
But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama's excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
What did he say?
I've got the transcript. I've got Senator Obama's own words.
Here is what you need to know.
The legislation came up more than once. In 2001, Senator Obama was concerned about the legislation's impact on abortion. But when the bill came back in 2002, the issue about the law undermining abortion had been redressed.
In 2002, Senator Obama was not concerned about Roe v. Wade. He was not concerned with undermining abortion laws in Illinois. No, what Senator Obama today claims were his concerns were not his concerns back in 2002.
In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law.
He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.
In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.
Here is what he said: As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.
SHORTER BARACK OBAMA: Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.
That's it. If a baby comes out and is alive, Barack Obama thought it too damned burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby was viable.
Don't believe me? Read the transcript here.No one else spoke out against the legislation. Only Barack Obama was so concerned about the doctor performing the abortion, he did not think it worth having a doctor used to live babies coming in to see if the baby might live.
Only Barack Obama.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
In a letter dated September24 from the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education the Bishop and Diocese received affirmation regarding their current policies regarding SDACT.
SDACT president Michael Milz, meanwhile downplayed the ruling, saying "It's Bishops judging Bishops. This is par for the course."
The SDACT radicals plan to appeal to the Apostolic Signatura. I doubt they'll have better luck there.
Let's not forget it was Milz and his patsies at the union that decided to take this to Rome. Now, when it does'nt go their way, they claim favoritism among the Bishops. The big, bad Church is picking on the little teachers. How very leftist of them.
I'll keep you informed how this plays out. In the meantime, I'll sit back and watch Milz and SDACT as they start a new campaign to intimidate, turn public opinion against the Church, and again act the victim in all this.
Should be fun.
Office of the Bishop Office of the Bishop
Diocese of Dallas Diocese of Fort Worth
October 8, 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
The month of October is Respect Life Month in our churches. It is a time in which we as Catholics are called to reflect upon the gift of life that has been entrusted to us by our Creator and to focus our attention on the many
attacks against human life that exist in our culture today. This year, Respect Life Month takes on a more profound meaning as we face an election in our country where the protection of human life itself, particularly that of the unborn, is very much at stake. Therefore, as your Bishops, we wish to take this opportunity to provide clear guidance on the proper formation of conscience concerning voting as faithful Catholics and to articulate the Church’s clear and unambiguous teaching on life issues as they relate to other issues of concern.
The Church teaches that all Catholics should participate as “faithful citizens” in the public square, especially through our voice in the voting booth, and that we have the responsibility to treat the decision for whom we will vote for with profound moral seriousness. We must approach the right and duty to vote with a properly formed and informed conscience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Last November, the Bishops of the United States issued a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in which we and our brother Bishops issued clear moral guidelines to aid the faithful in proper formation of conscience with regard to the many issues we face in our nation today. Through this joint statement to the faithful of Dallas and Fort Worth, we seek to briefly summarize the key points and dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in the document, especially that which may have arisen from recent public misinterpretation concerning this teaching.
1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence. Some issues involve “intrinsic evils”; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same sex unions and “marriages”, repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly states:
“There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.” (22)
2. The destruction of the most innocent of human life through abortion and embryonic stem cell research not only undercuts the basic human right to life, but it also subverts and distorts the common good. As Pope John Paul II clearly states:
“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good… It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop…” (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)
3. Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the “only issue” – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 48 million innocent lives have been lost. Each year in our nation more than one million lives are lost through legalized abortion. Countless other lives are also lost through embryonic stem cell research. In the coming months our nation will once again elect our political leaders. This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation. As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished.
4. As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of “prudential judgment.” But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of “abortion rights.”
As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (28)
5. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following: [PAY ATTENTION]
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. [Get that?] To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible. [There it is.]
6. In conclusion, as stated in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the decisions we make on these political and moral issues affect not only the general peace and prosperity of society at large, but also may affect each individual’s salvation. [I am so glad they added this. Our decisions to cooperate with evil, fight evil, strive to limit evil, remain apathetic in the face of evil, call evils good, tell people evils are good, etc…. these affect not just our neighborhoods, countries and cultures, they affect our membership in the Kingdom of God, reclaimed for us by Christ. We can lose what Christ won for us by our actions and inactions.] As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day. With knowledge of the Church’s teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils. May God bless you.
Faithfully in Christ,
Most Reverend Kevin J. Farrell
Bishop of Dallas
Most Reverend Kevin W. Vann
Bishop of Fort Worth
The commentary in yellow is from our friend Father Z.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
This was my second trip there, the last time a year and half ago. I liked it.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A PASTORAL LETTER FROM BISHOP MARTINO
Respect Life Sunday
My brothers and sisters in Christ,
The American Catholic bishops initiated Respect Life Sunday in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States. Since that time, Catholics across the country observe the month of October with devotions and pro-life activities in order to advance the culture of life. This October, our efforts have more significance than ever. Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills.
It is impossible for me to answer all of the objections to the Church’s teaching on life that we hear every day in the media. Nevertheless, let me address a few. To begin, laws that protect abortion constitute injustice of the worst kind. They rest on several false claims including that there is no certainty regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person, and that some human beings may be killed to advance the interests or convenience of others. With regard to the first, reason and science have answered the question. The life of a human being begins at conception. The Church has long taught this simple truth, and science confirms it. Biologists can now show you the delicate and beautiful development of the human embryo in its first days of existence. This is simply a fact that reasonable people accept. Regarding the second, the embryo and the fetus have the potential to do all that an adult person does. Finally, the claim that the human fetus may be sacrificed to the interests or convenience of his mother or someone else is grievously wrong. All three claims have the same result: the weakest and most vulnerable are denied, because of their age, the most basic protection that we demand for ourselves. This is discrimination at its worst, and no person of conscience should support it.
Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”
Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.
Furthermore, National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price.
In saying these things in an election year, I am in very good company. My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:
Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.
My fellow bishops, writing ten years ago, explained why some evils – abortion and euthanasia in particular – take precedence over other forms of violence and abuse.
The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation [emphasis in the original]. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, 23.
While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject.
It is the Church’s role now to be a prophet in our own country, reminding all citizens of what our founders meant when they said that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Church’s teaching that all life from conception to natural death should be protected by law is founded on religious belief to be sure, but it is also a profoundly American principle founded on reason. Whenever a society asks its citizens to violate its own foundational principles – as well as their moral consciences – citizens have a right, indeed an obligation, to refuse.
In 1941, Bishop Gustave von Galen gave a homily condemning Nazi officials for murdering mentally ill people in his diocese of Muenster, Germany. The bishop said:
“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts or law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4:13-14)”
Should he have opposed the war and remained silent about the murder of the mentally ill? No person of conscience can fail to understand why Bishop von Galen spoke as he did.
My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that “God is so humble that he uses us to spread his Word.” The gospel of life, which we have the privilege of proclaiming, resonates in the heart of every person – believer and non-believer – because it fulfills the heart’s most profound desire. Let us with one voice continue to speak the language of love and affirm the right of every human being to have the value of his or her life, from conception to natural death, respected to the highest degree.
October is traditionally the month of the Rosary. Let us pray the Rosary for the strength and fortitude to uphold the truths of our faith and the requirements of our law to all who deny them. And, let us ask Our Lady to bless our nation and the weakest among us.
May Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Lord of Life, pray for us.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.