LOUISIANA STATE SENATOR ELBERT GUILLORY: WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN

- Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory

"The Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what's best for black people.  Somehow it's been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: That slavery is a violation of the rights of man. Frederick Douglass called Republicans "the party of freedom and progress," and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation.  It was Republicans in Congress who authored the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.  Democrats, on the other hand, were the party of Jim Crow.  It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners.

At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans.  But the left is only concerned with one thing: Control.  And they disguise this control as charity.  Programs such as welfare, food stamps? These programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty! They were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.  The idea that blacks -- or anyone, for that matter -- need the government to get ahead in life, is despicable.  Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers, who control us by making us dependent on them.

To be truly free is to be reliant on no one, other than the author of our destiny.  These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.  So, my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment so that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

2012: AN ELECTION POST-MORTEM

Darn. I should have put money on this one. Last November I penned a column entitled “Obama’s Catholic Strategy for 2012: Brilliant”. In it I all but predicted Obama would win the 2012 election regardless of who he was up against. I knew Obama would win because Obama knew he would win.

How’s that? It was simple math. Obama knew that in addition to having the black vote, the latino vote, the youth vote, and the Left vote, he had the biggest vote of all: the Catholic vote. Catholics represent 25% of the population and even if Obama could carry half that, it was still more than the entire black vote.

As it turned out Obama did carry exactly half the Catholic vote. True, it was down 4% from 2008 when he carried 54%, but 50% is 50% too much when you consider that Obama obstinately advocated for three major Catholic non-negotiables (abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage), not to mention his much ballyhooed attack on religious freedom.

In my “Obama Strategy” article of a year ago, I ranted loudly that Catholics would once again go for Obama if the bishops did not get off their “religious freedom” kick and start warning Catholics - not about the consequences of losing their religious freedom - but about the consequences of losing their souls, and NOT because Catholics would vote for a man who embraced these non-negotiables, but because they themselves did!

In the column I noted polls showing 40% Catholic support for abortion, 98% for contraception, and 75% for same-sex marriage. Obama simply had to stand with the Catholics to get their vote. It was easy. The fact that he was able to stuff Cardinal Dolan and humiliate the whole U.S. episcopacy was an added bonus, and he got wined and dined at the Al Smith Dinner to boot.

In the end, the election was not about “jobs, jobs, jobs.” That was just a foil, and the Republicans took the bait. Obama knew he had no record to run on when it came to the economy, and he really didn’t try other than to say he needed more time. Obama knew that Americans were not interested in “jobs, jobs, jobs”, but “sex, sex, sex”, and more sex, and sex without consequences.

This is why the contraceptive mandate was the first thing out of the Obamacare box of goodies. It served a double purpose. With the mandate Obama knew he could both neutralize the U.S. bishops and frame opposition to it as a “War on Women”. Neutralizing the Church is always the first step of dictators...and usually long before we realize they are dictators.

Obama knew he could get away with this because he had learned well the moral innards of the Catholic electorate while working for the late Cardinal Bernardin as a community organizer in Chicago (during which he drew a paycheck from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development - thank you for your donations).

Bernardin, as head of the then National Council of Catholic Bishops, had been instrumental in taking any mention of the evils of contraception off the pulpit in the post-Humanae Vitae mayhem. And it was Bernardin who relegated the intrinsic evil of abortion to the moral status of a soup kitchen with his infamous “seamless garment” ideology.

The “seamless garment” thing - in blatant contradiction to Catholic teaching - basically said that all evils are equal and we cannot speak of one evil as greater than another. The “seamless garment” approach to morality essentially gave license to Catholics - already morally softened by two decades of the sexual revolution and doctrinal silence from the pulpit - to contracept, abort, and engage in their sin of choice so long as they cared about immigration reform.

It was a perfect stage for the rise of a man like Obama who knew how to manipulate those who would compromise with evil. This is why at the Democratic National Convention, in which speaker after speaker spoke of the glories of abortion, contraception, and same-sex whatever, Obama sealed the deal and assuaged the hurting consciences of even the most liberal Catholics with a speech by a nun who wiped the floor with Paul Ryan and redefined “pro-life” to mean concern for the uninsured.

The fact that Obama trotted out Cardinal Dolan at the end to give the final prayer was seen - despite Dolan’s few requisite pro-life remarks - as nothing more than an ode to Obama’s big-mindedness and another stamp on his Catholic passport.

Maybe it’s just me, but something tells me that at the Judgment, Christ is not going to ask us about religious freedom.

SOLVING FOR X

“We've got to persuade people to understand that getting married is important, having children is important.” The words of a conservative Catholic cleric? Some right-wing, pro-life radical? Nope. Those are the words of Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister and Founder of Singapore.

Appearing recently on Singapore TV, the 88 year-old Yew was not giving a lecture in defense of the family, he was decrying the death of the nation he himself had founded. Singapore may have one of the world’s highest standards of living, but it also has the world’s lowest fertility-rate and its population is dramatically imploding.

The fertility-rate is the number of children a woman will have over her lifetime. The minimum necessary for a society to replace itself is 2.1: one for her, one for her mate, and 0.1 to account for infant mortality. Singapore is at 0.75 and the rate has been declining since the 70’s after Yew himself instituted a policy called “Stop at Two” which paid women to get sterilized.  

Because Singapore is a small nation, it didn’t take long for the fertility reduction policy to manifest its effects. At first, it had the desired effect: a reduction in the number of child dependents freed up labor for Singapore’s economic machine. In fact, the economic turnabout was so quick that Singapore became known as the “Asian miracle”.

With few dependents and lots of capital, Singapore’s standard of living soared. But by 1980, Singapore was forced to begin importing migrant labor to keep its economic engine going. There simply were not enough young Singaporese. Yew’s fertility reduction policy had worked well, too well.

In 1980, Yew dropped his “Stop at Two” policy and replaced it with “Three or More”, which, instead of paying women to get sterilized, paid them to have babies. But, as Yew’s recent plea seems to evince, it hasn’t worked. As one commentator put it: the Singaporese seemed to have “acquired a taste for small families and shopping.”

Near tears, Yew further implored his people: "If we go on like that, this place will fold up, because there'll be no original citizens left to form the majority...Do we want to replace ourselves or do we want to shrink and get older and be replaced by migrants...?"

Though the desire to maintain political control through an ethnic majority seems to be at the root of Yew’s comments, the larger issue at some point for the aging Singaporese is simply going to be the need to have someone around to help them get to and from the toilet.

Singapore isn’t alone. A 2007 U.N report noted that the fertility rate is plunging in almost every country in the world (except for a few in sub-Saharan Africa), and warned of the effects of a “graying world” on the world’s health care systems. According to the report, the crisis point for each nation is when the over-65 population surpasses the under-5 population.

One demographer calls it “Solving for X”, X being the point at which the lines representing the two population sectors cross on a graph, foretelling a point, perhaps a generation hence, when there will simply be “too many old people.” Perhaps, this is why many countries whose populations have already reached “X”, particularly in Europe, have begun liberating their euthanasia laws.

“Solving for X” is at the root of the debate over America’s “safety-net” entitlements: Medicare and Social Security. These programs depend on taxing the incomes of the current working generation to pay for the care of retirees. In 1940, when Social Security was instituted, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today there are 2.8.

Recently, Paul Ryan created a stir over his plan to fix Medicare, which is endangered by the collapse of this worker to retiree ratio. His detractors have claimed that Ryan want to “throw Granny over the cliff”. However, the math is clear, Granny is already headed for the cliff, and you, right behind her.

Ironically, our “safety-net” crisis has been wrought by the very generation that will probably suffer most from its collapse. Like the people of Singapore, our own society has “acquired a taste for small families and shopping, not to mention the 50-80 million missing people due to the 2.7 unborn children we have aborted every minute of every day since January 27, 1973 (Roe v Wade).

Amazingly, in the midst of this crisis, President Obama has instituted an anti-fertility policy (HHS Mandate) which will hasten the collapse of the worker to retiree ratio, assuring the destruction of the social-safety net programs he pretends to champion, and setting us on a course for the economic and national melt-down which inevitably follows population implosion. Perhaps he should speak with Mr. Yew.

A REASON TO WAIL AND GNASH OUR TEETH

The “pregnancy is rare in rape” comment made by senatorial candidate, Todd Akin, has produced a firestorm of criticism from all sectors. But no one seems to have addressed the question which provoked the comment in the first place: would Akin accept an abortion exception in cases of rape and incest?

Akin actually went on to answer the question after his ill-fated rape comment, and answered it well, saying essentially he believed the rapist should be punished and not the child. In other words, “Why kill the baby?”

It’s an excellent question, and its a shame the conversation didn’t go there because it’s a conversation we need to have; for, is a child conceived in rape any less worthy of life than a child conceived otherwise?

The conversation didn’t “go there” because the abortion-mad media hounds already had the bone they were sniffing for in Akin’s comment on the alleged rarity of pregnancy in instances of “legitimate rape”, but we can “go there” now.

The question of an exception for abortion in cases of rape or incest particularly concerns Catholics since the Catholic Church is quite alone in holding that procured abortion is “intrinsic evil” - meaning never justified under any circumstances.

In other words, direct abortion is never licit, not only in cases of rape or incest, but even to save the life of the mother - a hard reality that was recently concretized in the canonization of St. Gianna Molla, who chose her own death rather than her unborn child’s.

However, the firm reality of this teaching is usually in conflict with most pro-life legislative efforts which often allow for a rape and incest exception in order to avoid constitutional challenges.

John Paul II addresses this conflict in Par. 73 of Evangelium Vitae. In recognizing circumstances  “when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law”, the Pope says it is still licit to attempt to limit the evil effects of an unjust law even though the attempt itself might necessitate the toleration of some evil aspects (such as the rape exception).

The Pope’s teaching is rooted in the moral principle of “the lesser of two evils”, one of the four basic moral principles which help us navigate morally complex issues where cooperation with evil in some degree is unavoidable (the others being the principle of double effect, tolerance, and compromise).

Choosing between “the lesser of two evils” is a common Christian dilemma in the political arena. There is rarely a perfect candidate or a perfect bill. But we still have a duty to the “Kingdom of God on earth”, when perfection is not one of the options, to vote for that which will do the “least harm”.

The presidential race presents a textbook case for the application of this principle. It’s no mystery that the Obama-Biden ticket is radically committed to abortion “rights”. Romney and Ryan are staunchly pro-life, but Romney would support an exception for rape and incest, making his position less that perfect relative to Catholic moral principles.

Obviously the Romney-Ryan ticket is “the lesser of two evils” on an issue that deals with no ordinary evil, but an intrinsic evil. However, expecting Catholics to choose the lesser of two evils in this instance assumes that Catholics actually care about abortion and recent polls show that they do not: Pew Research reported in July that 51% of Catholics believe that Obama-Biden best represents their views on abortion and only 36% chose Romney-Ryan.

Amazingly, while Catholic support of abortion escalates, the rest of the nation is seeing the exact reverse. A recent CNN poll now shows that 62% of Americans believe abortion  should be illegal in all but the most extreme cases, and only 35% want abortion for any reason.

So while we can rejoice that America is waking up to the ugliness and damage of abortion, the increasing Catholic support for abortion is an occasion for much wailing and gnashing of teeth (and perhaps a good examination of conscience).

And the problem isn’t just “over there”. Though we have no polling on the issue, we can assume the same percentages for Guam. Guam Medical Records reports that 55% of abortions since 2008 have been procured by Chamorros, most of whom, we can assume, are Catholics, or at least come from Catholic families.

Plus, Guam continues to play host to the least regulated abortion industry in the nation,  a sad reality which continues due to the refusal of the legislature to pass the most basic life-protecting bills such as Bill 309-30, which would have mandated normal medical care for a child who survives a failed abortion. The bill ended up in the trash just like the gasping, writhing babies it would have otherwise protected.

THUS SPAKE KARL MARX

A few days ago I came across a challenging post by an old friend on Facebook claiming a woman’s right to free birth control. I engaged the issue with her for a bit and ended up in the middle of a female comment-ambush from her other friends (if you know how Facebook works). My only support came from a guy who clicked “like” on one of my comments and then disappeared.

Defending the Church’s teaching on contraception can be a lonely venture given that the Church herself is alone amongst other Christian religions in this regard, and within the Church, opposition and rejection of the doctrine is so endemic that the faithful remnant who adhere to it are regularly forced to creatively respond to ridicule, e.g. “Don’t you know what causes that?” (A common slur, albeit usually friendly, whenever it is learned that one has more than two or three children, or you are expecting...“Again!”)

Perhaps Exhibit A of just how leprous this issue is, is the current insistence that the opposition to the Obama mandate is not about contraception but about religious liberty and rights of conscience. Hmmm. Perhaps this is why the episcopal roar sounds no louder than a squeak to the otherwise-occupied Obama. The fact is that the only thing that makes this an issue of religious liberty, is not THAT the government is telling us what to do, but WHAT the government is telling us to do.

Churches are forced to obey civil mandates all the time on such things as building, safety, and health regulations. We don’t complain that our religious liberty is being violated because our church is forced to comply with these things, so why are we complaining about the contraceptive mandate? Answer:  Because either through payment for health insurance or the fine that would be levied in the absence of insurance IT FORCES US TO MATERIALLY PARTICIPATE IN AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACT!

No, not just something morally objectionable, morally problematic, or against our beliefs - milquetoast terms which have been used to characterize the dilemma. No, the term is “intrinsic evil”. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2370: "...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil...”

The only thing that justifies our complaint against Obama’s assault on religious liberty is the objective fact that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil and not just intrinsically evil for Catholics, but intrinsically evil for everyone. The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth and if the Catholic Church teaches that an act is intrinsically evil then it is always evil for all people in all times and all places, period. And we need to say so.

If we don’t believe that then we might as well turn in our missalettes and head down the street to the First Church of What’s Happening Now where if we don’t like what Pastor Billy Joe Jim Bob is preachin’ we can fire him and hire Pastor Feelgood and contracept in peace. (Forgive my brief flight into metaphor.)

Intrinsic evil is a 10 on the 1 to 10 scale of evil. Not even homosexual acts rate a 10 as the Catechism categorizes those as only “intrinsically disordered” (CCC 2357), presumably a notch or two below a 10. Intrinsic evil puts any act that intentionally renders procreation impossible in the same category as procured abortion: always and everywhere GRAVE SIN and under no circumstance can be ever justified. With such clear teaching, one wonders how so many Catholics seem to either not know about it or not care.

Ironically, the very issues the bishops are arguing with Obama about, religious freedom and conscience rights, are the very concepts many Catholics use (albeit mistakenly) to justify their disregard for the very doctrine the bishops appear to be desirous of protecting: many Catholics simply feel that as matter of “freedom of conscience” and “religious liberty”, they are free to make up their own minds about birth control. In fact, some of us are even told to do so (as I was).

How this errant idea of conscience came to dominate the modern Catholic mind is a question we seriously need to engage given its ubiquity and the institutionalized debauchery (as predicted by Paul VI) it has wrought, not to mention the mockery it makes of the marriage vow and the consequent desecration of sacramental family life! We once again have to ask: “How did we get here?”

Father John O’Malley gives us a clue in “What Happened at Vatican II” wherein he recounts the titanic struggle at the Council over the unleashing of the idea of religious liberty, something actually previously condemned by the Church.  

Many bishops warned that despite the caveat noting that religious liberty, as put forth in the document Dignitas Humanae, applied ONLY to religious immunity from governmental coercion, the very notion of religious freedom, untethered from its very narrow traditional moorings, would lead to the privatization of conscience where one would perceive a license to pick and choose one’s doctrines and eventually one’s church, or even no church at all. Sound familiar?

So while the document’s authors attempted to take great care in not letting the noble idea of religious liberty devolve into personal license, and while its defenders continue to sincerely insist that the idea of religious liberty as put forth by the Council brooked no rupture with the past, we simply have what we have: Catholics who see no problem with abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, and a take it or leave it attitude about the sacraments, all of whom yet believe they are going straight to heaven because Jesus loves them “just the way they are.”

From the moment Dignitas Humanae was propagated, a defense of the document was needed. Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have all attempted to show that the misapplication of religious liberty was due to a problem with its interpretation, not the teaching itself.

Benedict XVI, seeing clearly the rent in the church, both in the consequent abdication of moral teaching and the split with certain traditionalists (SSPX) with whom he is attempting to reconcile, has admitted that there is “some kind of discontinuity” in the religious liberty of Vatican II versus the religious liberty of Pius IX, but believes that the key to continuity lies in the application of the the proper hermeneutic. And of course he is correct. But meanwhile, we have a problem. A big one. And Obama has socked us right between the hermeneutic.

So what now? We are at the precipice of where forty plus years of an errant and mostly-tolerated idea of religious liberty has brought us. To win this one the bishops need their troops, but the troops are depleted, ironically by the very thing they are trying to protect: religious liberty. Religious liberty, or more correctly, the perceived idea of it, has led to both a radical depletion in family size and a mass exodus from the one, true Church. The pews are more than half empty, and the few who are left have probably never heard the words “intrinsic evil”, at least not in the same sentence with birth control.

A loss for our church leadership on this one is more than just the loss of a religious exemption. It will be a malignant manifestation of the very thing Dignitias Humanae was supposed to prevent: coercion of religion by the state. And once the state can coerce religion, then history shows that the tyrannical repression of religious people themselves is only a few short steps away.

Make no mistake, the crippling of church, and the Catholic Church in particular, is always the first step towards totalitarianism. Thus spake Karl Marx: “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” And we have already seen how that has worked out.

In a recent interview with Vatican Radio, Bishop Robert Morlino of Wisconsin said of the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty: “If they can do it to Catholics, they can do it to anybody.” Morlino’s warning was reminiscent of the famous statement attributed to Martin Niemoller about the unchallenged Nazi rise to power, which is here, paraphrased:

First they came for the Catholicsand I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.Then the came for the (next target group)and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a (member of said target group)Then they came for the (next target group)and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a (member of said target group)Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.

Don’t think it can happen in America? Then consider the ominous prediction of the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, in response to the growing viciousness against the Catholic Church in America: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Depending on what happens in November of 2012, it may not even take that long.

To his credit, President Obama...

...when asked on Letterman if he thought that opposition to his policies was based on racism, Obama replied: "Well, Dave, I was Black before the election...". He went on to explain that while racism exists America still elected him president.

I was glad to hear him say that for base charges of racism do not allow us to engage policies at face value. That is not to say racism isn't a problem. It will always be a problem. But I like what Oprah said: "The best answer to discrimination is excellence."

The fact that Obama's poll numbers are declining is not the result of racism or right wing radio diatribe. Those who are racist now were racist before the election. And the so-called "right wing" talk show guys are not saying anything different now than they were saying before the election.

Nothing has changed on that front.

Actually Obama's "personal" poll numbers have not declined that much. He is still extremely popular, once again evincing the fact that opposition to his policies is not about racism.

The poll's are showing falling support for his policies, especially on health care reform. Why? Is Obama any less of an effective communicator now than he was before the election? No. Are more people racist now than 8 months ago? Not likely. Are right wing radio talk show hosts any more vocal now than before the election? Nope.

Most of the criticism of the opposition to health care reform is aimed at the so-called lies and deceptions allegedly perpetrated by the right wing and the insurance companies. But these so-called lies and deceptions are far less inflammatory than the allegations leveled personally at Obama before the election over his ties to anti-American characters such as his pastor and Bill Ayers, his very obvious lack of experience (only 148 days in the senate), and his militant support of abortion.

The rhetoric was far more inflammatory before the election. Then added to that he was being attacked by the Clintons, arguably one of the most formidable political machines in the history of the country.

Obama faced far more opposition before the election, and to his credit, overcame it. He won fair and square, although I would add that he was rather weakly opposed (McCain didn't offer much of an alternative.)

In effect, as regards race or personal opposition, nothing has changed. And of course now the Clintons are now defending him instead of attacking him. The only thing that is new is the implementation of his agenda. I don't use "agenda" in a negative way. He has an agenda that he thinks is best for the country, as every President does, and he is attempting to implement it. The fact is that more and more people do not like what they see, just like they didn't like what they saw with the Bush administration - which inevitably paved the way to Obama's election.

We also must note that the Republicans CANNOT be blamed for anything. They do not have enough votes to stop anything. The Democrats have full control of both houses of Congress AND the White House. Obama could have his health care reform today if he wanted to.

There is no need to go around the country doing television interviews to convince the American people that his plan is good. The American people will not vote on the plan, Congress will. And Congress is able to pass any of the plans right now.

If the plan is as good as its proponents say it is then there is no need to fight with the opposition. Just pass the plan and let the people see and experience the plan itself. There's no need to go on Letterman. But apparently Obama thinks there is.

The truth is that the real fight is among the Democrats. Let me restate: THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT STOP ANYTHING. So what are the Democrats fighting about? Why can't they just move forward?

That's a question they do not want us to ask which is why their defenders keep trying to stir up dust with talk of racism, talk show hosts, and Republican opposition. But as just shown, none of those things are a factor.

Conscience and the Catholic Voter??

A friend of mine recently forward to me an article from America Magazine entitled Conscience and the Catholic Voter, written by Mary Ann Walsh, R.S.M., director of media relations for the USCCB.

I've been reading quite a few articles like this lately and I can't help but notice a trend, or even a "template".

It goes like this:

1. Clear statement of authentic Catholic moral teaching (i.e. "Not all issues are equal")

2. Followed by words, more words, more and more words, words, words, and more words…(i.e. the rest of the article)

3. Along the way, a plethora of issues are mentioned that by the time you get to the end the initial statement is so diluted and blurred that either the average reader just gives up and votes his/her gut (as item 6 even suggests), or the Catholic, looking for justification to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, finds what he/she is looking for.

Actually this article doesn't wait long to reveal it's pro-Obama bent. It gets right to it in item #1.

Item 1 begins with the lofty "Not all issues are equal" and identifies "life" issues as paramount. But then opts for singling out Embryonic Stem Cell Research as an example of a life issue.

It's not a coincidence (in my opinion) that ESCR is selected and isolated. This is the only issue that McCain is at odds with Church teaching on.

The author's intention is clearly suspect in selecting ESCR as the demonstrable issue. Here's why:

The debate over ESCR is divided between:
1. Harvesting new embryos for research
2. Using existing embryos for research that would otherwise be destroyed. (McCain ONLY supports this option)

Also in the moral gradation of Life Issues, procured abortion would trump ESCR because abortion involves another intrinsic evil: torture. (That abortion is NOT EVEN mentioned in the article is EXTREMELY ODD especially coming from an office within the USCCB.)

While neither option a nor b is morally acceptable to a Catholic, a non-Catholic, like McCain, may not have the moral foundation to clearly understand the nuance (most Catholics don't either). The author makes no attempt to define the debate.

As for point 2 above, the fetal spine and brain (and thus sensitivity to pain) are usually developed between 5-9 weeks. About ½ of all abortions happen after the 9th week. Almost all abortions after the 9th week involve surgical dismemberment, crushing of the skull, burning the child in the womb, or some form of mutilation of a living, feeling human being. Obviously we are speaking of torture here- something that wouldn't apply to ESCR.

The author then descends into the normal litany of issues such as health care, poverty, right to a job, just wage, immigration, discrimination, etc.

All of these are important issues in themselves and must be dealt with but the author's design seems an obvious attempt to scurry away as quickly as possible from the the Life Issue.

There is also the requisite back handed slap at the Bush administration, most evident in the health care and economic issues.

What's sad is that traditionally the Church did not wait for the government to provide health care, She provided it. She invented the medical missionaries, the hospital, the orphanage, the soup kitchen. This is the way the Church USED to work for justice and human rights.

Taking care of the poor, the stranger, the downtrodden ourselves was our FIRST order of business. Campaigning for legislative change was secondary. We now (not all of course) excuse ourselves from doing this dirty work because the "grant didn't come through" or "the Republicans took away the funding".

I could go on point by point but it just gets thicker.

My Letter to EWTN

Dear Friends,

I watch your program often (Life on the Rock). The other day you were discussing Pelosi's obviously uninformed statement on abortion. Your program is probably not the program to get into this, but I believe EWTN needs to address the reason behind the reason why so many Catholic politicians...and Catholics in general believe they can have an independent opinion on abortion.

The problem is so pervasive that our Church must stop addressing the smoke and start dealing with the fire.

I believe Pelosi's own statement gives us a clue. She mentioned that while other politicians had been denied communion for the public pro-abortion positions, her bishop had not denied her communion.

It's easy to see how one might get the idea that the moral teaching is up for grabs when the application of the penalty appears to be..

The real culprit in the constant problem we have with Catholic pro-abortion politicians is the Church leadership in America.

When Mother Angelica was around she didn't hesitate to go after this. I've noticed that, now that she is not around, EWTN doesn't seem to have anyone with the guts to go arter this as she did.

She suffered for it, too. But that's what made EWTN. I don't see a future for EWTN unless you find someone who has the guts to do what she did. The problem is not the people. The problem is the Church leaders who continue to disobey. Mother Angelica knew that, said that, and paid the price for saying that. Will anyone follow her?

Tim Rohr
Guam

Obama-nation

(Thanks to Chuck White for the Title)

While must of us in Guam cannot vote in the Presidential election, many of us are involved in the support of presidential canditates in some form. Thus, this is something we should know about.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama is currently courting the residents of Guam, promising war reparations, jobs, opportunities, etc. (See PDN 4/10/08),

His overtures put Guam's Catholics in a quandry of whether they will "serve God or mammon".

While Obama proposes to give Guam what many consider their "just do". Catholics cannot ignore his VERY anti-life voting record:

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Also, you can see several of Obama's exact quotes on abortion here.

As an Illinois state senator he refused to support the Born Alive Infants Bill - legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions.

While many people are aware of Partial Birth Abortion, a procedure where a live baby is extracted from the mother feet first and then stabbed in the back of the head, few are aware of the procedure that the Born Alive Bill is meant to protect.

These babies are born alive after induced labor and then left to die. Obama would not support a bill to make this "procedure" illegal. (See: Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever)

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always evil, that there are no circumstances in which it can be allowed. (See Catechism 2272)

Our Church also teaches that a "well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals." (See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.)


The support of Obama (and Hillary Clinton too) is not a "direct" vote for a law that "contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals", but "being one step removed from law-making doesn't let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible." (Catholic Answers voting guide).

There will be those who will contend that McCain is in error for supporting the war in Iraq but our Church makes it very clear that the issues of war and abortion are not in the same moral category (see CCC 2309, 2267). War is not intrinsically evil and thus sometimes allowed. Abortion (and euthanasia) is NEVER allowed and is ALWAYS evil.

In order to protect the tax exempt status of the parish (or diocese), a church leader may not advocate for or against a particular party or candidate. However, there is nothing that inhibits our pastors from instructing Catholics on the demands of our faith as concerns moral issues and the consequences of our actions.

It would be wonderful to see our Church take moral leadership in this regard. However, each one of us has a severe moral duty to confront those among us who are contributing to the camps of pro-abortion candidates. And perhaps since as individuals we do not have to concern ourselves with IRS rules, we can be even more upfront and effective

Voting on Guam - Why I'm not registered

10/27/2006

In a few days we'll have another election here on Guam (as in the states). Every time there is an election I am usually asked several times "Did you vote?". I always say no and then normally have to explain myself. So by writing this I'll just say no and send inquirers to my blog.

I don't begrudge anyone for asking me. It's a normal question, but my answer isn't normal, so here it is.

First of all I never vote for people. I vote for issues and for whichever people who will best represent those issues. Actually there is only ONE issue that I care about so I'm one of those dreaded "one-issue voters".

I only care about the issue of Abortion simply because the issue of protecting the most innocent of life is so fundamental that not only do other issues pale in comparison, in my opinion there are no other issues. If we can't protect the most innocent of life and allow living children to be torn limb from limb then nothing else we do to better society will matter.

The devil is already in the room and everything and everyone is already mortally infected. Any attempt to "better" society without first carving out the putrid and gangrenous evil of abortion is like putting a band-aid on a person with cancer.

So what does that have to do with why I'm not registered to vote in Guam?

I live in Guam but am registered to vote in California. In order to vote in Guam I would have to register locally and give up my status as a registered California voter. So why don't I do that?

Because of Guam's territorial status (not one of the 50 states) a registered Guam voter cannot vote in the Presidential election. By maintaining my California registered voter status I can vote in the Presidential election.

And why do I want to do that? Since I live in Guam shouldn't I be more concerned with local issues?

The only way to outlaw abortion in the United States is through the same process that it became lawful to begin with. The Supreme Court will have to overturn Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion in America. The only way for that to happen is for pro-life judges to gain the bench. The only way for that to happen is to first have a pro-life president.

So, let me repeat. I only care about abortion. The only way to stop abortion is with a pro-life judiciary. The only way to get a pro-life judiciary is to first have a pro-life president (a pro-life congress would help too).

By keeping my ability to vote in the presidential election I am keeping alive one more vote that may someday mean keeping alive one more child who would otherwise be dismembered and sucked down a vacuum hose.

Yes, I know we have to change minds and hearts too and that outlawing abortion won't mean that abortion will stop. But we didn't wait to change minds and hearts before we outlawed theft and murder (of humans after they're born).

Currently our country legally sanctions the mutilation of millions in the name of sexual gratification. That's what this is really all about anyway. It's about having sex without consequences. It's not about reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose. It's about getting your sexual kicks whenever and with whomever you want: Sex without consequences! But a baby is a consequence. So we kill it.

I'll repeat: Satan is already in the friggin room folks. So go ahead and talk about your better education and your economic plans. Satan loves watching us fiddle with our “issues” while he burns Rome from the inside out.

Now there is one thing that would make me register to vote here on Guam. Last year the state of South Dakota passed a law that banned abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother, not the "health" of the mother, just the life. Catholicism goes further and would not kill the baby even if the mother's life was in danger (it get's complicated here, but that's the jist of it and something I've personally had to face).

The law is currently tied up in the courts, but the point is that the people of South Dakota and their political leaders DID SOMETHING to outlaw abortion. Why couldn't we do the same thing on Guam? With a mostly Catholic legislature and judiciary we should be able to pass the law and enact it pronto!

But abortion never comes up in the local elections of this mostly Catholic island. It's a major hot topic in every stateside election, but not here. We're content, at least politically and legislatively to let the babies be destroyed.

And in my opinion so long as we lift not a finger to outlaw this mass murder in our midst we can expect family violence to get worse (and it's already bad), for school violence to get worse (and it's already bad), for drug abuse, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, and the whole stream of demons to continue their parade into Guam and into the souls of the people who live here. The fabric of our society here will continue to deteriorate with every mutilated baby no matter who's in office.

How interesting that the majority of the political “waves” take place at the “ITC intersection” in the very shadow of the infamous “Women’s Clinic” Satan smiles from its windows.

By the way, there will be those who will claim that they are active in the "pro-life" arena and they do this and they do that. And yes they do, and they should keep doing it. I'm not talking about protesting abortion. I'm talking about legally stopping it. And there's NOTHING being done in that arena.

I would register to vote here if there was at least one candidate who was willing to try to put a law in place like the one in South Dakota. There's no reason it can't be done. It already has been done. I would put my time, money, energy, effort, and life into supporting a candidate who tried to save the babies.

Oh, and I’m NOT talking about candidates who say they’re pro-life. I’m talking about candidates who say they’re pro-life and stand up and say “If I’m elected I will immediately submit a bill to pass a law to ban abortion on this island for any reason!” Let them go ahead and add the exemption for the life of the mother. I’ll settle for that for now. (It’s so rare anyway.)

I've shared this with many. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea…but obviously not a good enough idea to do something for nothing has. We’re all busy with our COLA's and our fiddles I guess.

Okay, perhaps I just talked myself into running for office. Well, if no one else will do this, then I will. Guess I'll be needing to register so I can vote for myself.