John Kerry, the oh so pompous…who is seeking some legacy other than the betrayal of his comrades in arms in Viet Nam, has decided to extend his treasonous activities to brand new generations of our servicemen and women. Kerry is despicable. Thank the Lord above that the honorable men of the Swift Boat Veterans had the courage of their convictions and stopped Kerry’s White House aspirations. As it turned out it only deferred us the disaster which is Barack Hussein Obama. Barry and Kerry deserve each other. They share the same yellow streak. Obama’s inability to make a decision to send the resources to Afghanistan that the field commanders in charge have determined are required to accomplish the mission, despite the advice of the finest military minds in the country, is irresponsible and well… it’s cowardly. Every two bit tinhorn bad guy in the world sees Obama for what he is…weak, ineffectual, indecisive and therefore not to be feared. John Kerry has already proven his yellow creds…his shameless self promotion and the outright prevarication of his service record were and are an embarrassment to the entire officer corps of the US military. Except perhaps a Jack Murtha who gave his honor away long ago. Kerry’s appearance before Congress as a member of the Viet Nam Veterans against the war was a LITANY of untruths created of whole cloth…and an insult to hundreds of thousands of men and women who served during the Viet Nam era faithfully upholding the oaths they swore. Now John Kerry seeks to falsify another LEGACY on the bodies of our honored dead. Every day that Obama stalls in his decision and every day that the BOMBASTIC Mr Kerry goes in front of the cameras to play out his seditious game at our military’s expense is a day there is American blood on his and Obama’s hands. Clearly there is gross malfeasance at work in the administration and in the halls of Congress. How long will we allow these truly evil people to play with the lives of those for who they are not fit to carry water? The day of reckoning cannot come soon enough. The ballot box is our recourse…The nearest opportunity is 2010. Let them hear us loudly and clearly.
There is a largely ignored, little known or understood demographic out there, that the Obama Thugfest would prefer stayed silent or went away. America’s veterans are only usually consulted or cited when some one, or another politician, needs to use us for election, or to save an incumbency, or to legitimize some political scheme or another. This by NO measure is meant to denigrate the excellent works of Veteran’s Organizations such as The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Marine Corps League and the Purple Heart Society. There are others with which I am not as familiar, they are not excluded here on purpose. These organizations are known for their selfless good works and generosity. Heretofore, they have been pretty much the only voice of millions of veterans, past and present. This a huge and GROWING demographic…there are some 23.7 MILLION vets out there of all stripes. Women, Men, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, and Asians. They have one thing in common…a profound love and respect for this country, the Constitution they swore to protect and defend and the service they gave.
Naturally, as with any large grouping there are notable exceptions. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor and the guy Obama listened to spewing hatred against the country that nurtured him for 20 years, is one. He was a naval hospital corpsman. And there is John ‘Gunboats’ Kerry, who clandestinely met with our enemy, the North Vietnamese, in the dark of night in Paris, France, and then with instructions from his handlers firmly in mind returned home to stab his erstwhile brothers-in-arms in the back by going in front of Congress and manufacturing atrocities, supposedly committed by US forces, out of whole cloth. There are the inevitable dropouts to alcohol and drugs…but this is nothing new and has been with us from every war. This is a miniscule number when considered against the whole…most of us come back, live our lives as responsible citizens, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. I used to wonder what would happen if this largely passive, immense demographic were pushed to the point of intolerability by an increasingly oppressive and unresponsive government. I may get a chance to find out.
There is an emerging group of veterans, both active and retired, and police active and retired. They are called “Oath Keepers” who have pledged to prevent dictatorship in this country by pledging to ask police and the military to lay down their arms and not obey orders they deem unlawful or unconstitutional, and to stand by their Oaths to the Constitution. You know…the first American revolution didn’t start over a hell of a lot more than this. Please note: these folks are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government…though this government certainly needs a wake up call. Neither are they calling for armed insurrection. They are simply calling for our elected government and the people who are supposed to represent us in it, who swore to OBEY the Constitution of the United States of America to… ABIDE BY THE OATHS THEY AFFIRMED BEFORE GOD!!
Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.
When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.
Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.
Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.
Which brings us to politicians.
We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.
Surprise! They're all democrats.
Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.
The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.
Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.
In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.
On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".
From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:
2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.
The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
And the last, "Interpreting the Moral Law" Point 4:
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)
All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.
Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:
The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.
Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on "Meet the Press":
MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?
REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."
To answer the simple question "When does life begin?" Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don't ask the Doctors of the Church to "make that definition." One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:
Nancy: "And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."
Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, " p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)
The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.
But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." -Pope John Paul II; "Evangelium Vitae," paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.
Pelosi says "that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time." Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all--to do so would force her to change her position. And no "ardent, practicing Catholic" has ever been, or ever will be, "pro-choice" on abortion.
In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”
"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.
"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.
"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.
Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.
Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:
National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion
If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”
and:
In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
Well. That seems pretty clear to me.
Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.
Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.
Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.
The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.
Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.
Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:
This is a saline abortion:
This is a partial birth abortion:
I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".
People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.
Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.
The political divisions in America are pretty even. About half of the country votes Democrat, the other half Republican. Neither party usually runs away with the vote—occasionally, as in 1972 or 1984, one candidate wins the election in a landslide, but that is rare. Most of the time, the vote is split nearly fifty-fifty, and the outcome of the race is in doubt until the very end. (In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by a fraction of a point; in 2004, Bush won by three points, and carried fifty-one percent of the vote).
Both sides have some winning issues. Republicans favor lower taxes, back a strong approach to fighting crime, and advocate a strong foreign policy. Democrats support a strong welfare state, push for a more compassionate community, and work for peace. All of these are winning issues—ideological inconsistencies notwithstanding, I would estimate that between sixty and seventy percent of the nation supports all these ideas. Neither party really has a significant edge here.
But the GOP has one massive advantage: the Democrat party simply refuses to admit defeat. That sort of relentless, Vince Lombardi attitude is considered a positive, but it isn’t in this case. The Democrat party is literally incapable of ever admitting that it actually lost an election.
In 2000, George W. Bush won. But Democrats seem to live in an alternate universe where the election was actually stolen because a) there were a number of black Florida voters who were not permitted to vote because of felonies committed, b) the butterfly ballot was really confusing, c) Katherine Harris wouldn’t count all the votes, d) the Republican appointed Supreme Court justices just voted for the Republican, e) the Republican Supreme Court justices had conflicts of interest that should have disqualified them from hearing the case, and f) Diebold rigged the voting machines anyway.
You would think that, if the election was that flawed, somebody not associated with the far left would have noticed, and maybe even done something about it. But no, the “dumb” George Bush managed to brazenly steal an election without anybody really caring.
In 2004, Bush defeated the hapless John Kerry by three points. Though he didn’t really “defeat” him, he cheated again, although the actual method used is a matter of come controversy in Democrat circles. Some believe that the Republican government in Ohio suppressed the Democrat vote, and that Diebold stole the election again. (Democrats have an almost supernatural awe of Diebold—they believe there is nothing that that corporation can’t do). Others believe that Bush won by employing the dirty, nigh-McCarthyesque political trick by “swiftboating” Kerry by casting doubt on his military service. But whatever the method used, the Republicans didn’t really win the 2004 elections—the Democrats won the moral victory, while the Republicans won only by virtue of their legendary unscrupulousness.
In 2006, the Democrats actually won. However, even though the outcome was never really in doubt, Nancy Pelosi provided an out—she decided in advance that if the Democrat didn’t win, it would be due to rigged voting machines.
Democrats are already preparing their excuses this time around, which can’t be a good sign for Barack Obama. McCain clearly did better in Rick Warren’s forum—he was strong, on-message, and decisive, while Obama came across as weak and vacillating. But did McCain really win? Nope, because maybe he wasn’t completely isolated, and could have heard Warren’s question beforehand. There isn’t any evidence to support this, but then, there’s nothing to say it couldn’t have happened.
Of course, the most commonly used justification will be the race card—that the only reason not to vote for Obama is racism. If Obama loses, it will not be because he is an inexperienced politician with some dubious associations and unpopular positions; it will be because John McCain subtly played the race card.
The Republican party will lose elections, and make terrible strategic mistakes. But it will learn from then (albeit slowly). The Democrat party will lose elections and make terrible mistakes as well. But as long they refuse to face reality, they will simply continue to make the same mistakes over and over. And since Democrats don’t seem to have any intention of accepting defeat, no matter how severe, Republicans should be very encouraged for their party’s success in the future.
