St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train

From the Family Research Council, more of what most pro-lifers already know about Sen. Obama but worth making clear as he continues to deny that he voted to let babies born alive be tossed aside and left to die–whether in 5 minutes or hours, as it sometimes took.

For all of his stirring speeches, even Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) can’t talk himself out of the controversy that’s emerged over his position on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The legislation, which protects newborns who survive an abortion from infanticide, became a federal law in 2002. In Illinois, Obama actively opposed an identical piece of legislation as a committee chairman, stating later that he would have endorsed it had the bill contained the same language as the federal version. When it surfaced that he voted against the BAIPA, Obama lied in several interviews, including this one with Chicago Tribune in 2004 in which he told reporters that “had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.” This week, the National Right to Life Committee uncovered new documents proving that the Illinois version of the Act was taken verbatim from the congressional bill, which means that the man running for president has been lying about his position on the issue for six years. The deception continues on his website, where a June 30 “fact check” claims that the Illinois and federal bills “did not contain . . . exactly the same language.” Is it any surprise that a man who referred to babies as a “punishment” would vote for the killing of innocent children who survive abortions? As David Limbaugh writes in yesterday’s column, “Are pro-life Obama supporters so selfishly hooked on a feeling… that they’ll back Obama and his party in the most immoral crusade since slavery? It appears so.”

Additional Resources
David Limbaugh: The ‘Making Abortion Rare’ Hoax
Jill Stanek: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

I’ve spent less time at our computer the past few weeks, and the time I have been on it, I have been using to work on completing the Tower Defense game, hence the sporadic posting.

This fall I am facilitating a men’s book study group called Men at Work at my parish, and by God’s grace, a great group of guys have joined it, so I am looking forward to that.  Also, I am going to be coaching a boy’s soccer team with my Dad starting in about two weeks, which I am looking forward to but also will consume a lot of free time.

Finally, and most important of all, we are taking the foster-adoption classes; next week we have three during the week lasting for 2 - 3 hours and then a 7 - 8 hour one on Saturday; meanwhile we are filling out the reams (literally) of paper work for the application process.

And I wouldn’t have it any other way, but we have had a full schedule–how much fuller will it be if God blesses us with a baby or two?! 

And a last thought: I’ve gotten a bit burned out about the presidential election–it’s something that can really bother me as a person with a melancholic temperament, so I have to step away from it for a while and leave it on the back burner.

The big news this week about John Edwards’ infidelity is sad; I feel the worst for his children who have had to see their father’s shameful behavior trumpeted on the headlines; may God bless his wife and children and lead him and the other woman to repentance, forgiveness, and deep conversion of heart.  How vital is the virtue of chastity!  And how much is every man tempted to lust and infidelity, which knows no political parties?

Oh yeah, happy memorial of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein)!

I was struck recently by the difference between the world leader of 1.1 billion Catholics, Pope Benedict, and the next world leader of the United States of America, either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, specifically with regard to their motivations for wanting to be elected to these high positions.

My observation is this: Pope Benedict was reluctant to become the Pope; he didn’t want the position, but McCain and Obama both eagerly desire to become the President.

Cardinal Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict before he became Pope) submitted his request for retirement multiple times to John Paul II–requests denied. He was over 75 years old, the normal retirement age, and he wanted to spend his retirement in his beautiful homeland with his brother, Monsignor Georg.

However, when the College of Cardinals chose him to be the Pope, he humbly accepted their decision as the will of God, and in the past three years has shown himself to be a man after God’s own heart, reaching out to the Orthodox Church for reconciliation, reaching out to those persons abused by priests and others in the Church, proving the silly accusations from the media elite of being “Der Panzer Pope” or “God’s rottweiler” or “the Vatican enforcer” to be completely spurious and ridiculous.

In short, he is the just the man you would want to lead your Church.

How does this differ from our American presidential race today? Well, what have we watched on the news everyday for the past year? Hillary, Barack, McCain, and the other candidates jockeying for position, pushing themselves forward, promoting themselves and all the great things that they will do for the country if elected.

They all desire to be the President, probably for mixed motives, some good and some bad, and they all have realized that in our country’s culture today, you have to promote yourself to make it to the top. You have to have all the answers to every single issue and can never appear to–gasp!–not know the answer on the spot to how to solve world hunger and the energy crisis and radical Islam and the sub-prime housing collapse.

I wish that our political candidates were more like the Pope, reluctant to take up a post with such tremendous responsibility to the 6 billion people in the world and especially to the 300 million Americans.

Toqueville warned of this type of problem happening with a democratic system where people were elected. And we see in the lives of the founders of our country that it used to not be so; there were great men who served the country as leaders reluctantly, out of love of the country and duty, but not selfishly eager.

Can we get back to candidates who have humility and don’t promote themselves like prize fighters? I don’t know, but I hope so.

…with the lowest approval rating in the history of our country, refuses to hold hearings to either confirm or reject qualified, nominated judges, whose only misfortune in life is that they have the gall to be Republicans.

This has been happening for a long time now; Chief Judge Robert Conrad has been waiting for over a year to even get a hearing.

Sen. Obama is the most prominent member of the Democratic Senate, and he talks frequently about uniting our country, ending divisiveness and partisan politics, bringing people together with compromise. But the proof is in the pudding: He has not acted to give these judges hearings and so the divisiveness and partisan politics continues, depriving our country of needed judges.

A new book!

I haven’t read it, but I love it already.

Just check out the subtitle: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate”

Sen. McCain has put up a video of Sen. Obama’s multiple contradictory statements about the war in Iraq.

I don’t plan to debate details but rather just want to point out that, whether or not beginning the war was just, we now have a responsibility to help them establish a good government and peaceful nation, which we have had significant success in doing in the past year or two.

The course that we should take should be reasoned through and wisely decided; Sen. Obama, as you can watch in the video, clearly contradicts himself flatly multiple times on the Iraq war; it seems clear that he has been changing his positions for political expedience and doesn’t have firm reasons that would support a steady position.

A brief example is the first section of the video where multiple clips are shown of him saying that the surge would not work, then later, after it worked, saying that he knew it would work all the time and had always said so.  It’s okay to change your position and admit that you have come to believe that you were incorrect and explain why you changed but acting like you never made a mistake and reversed your position is something that seems all too common in our American politics, both Republican and Democrat.

The excellent National Catholic Register has an exclusive response that Fr. Neuhaus made to Doug Kmiec, who is publicly supporting Sen. Obama and claiming Catholics can support the senator.

Here is a good passage from the beginning:

Mr. Kmiec argues that we can’t rank abortion as greater evil or a more pressing social and legal concern than racism because they are both intrinsic evils. But Mr. Kmiec has misunderstood the meaning of the term intrinsic evil, and the nature of our political moment.

That two actions are both intrinsically evil tells us nothing about the relative gravity of each action. Telling a lie is intrinsically evil. So is rape. They are not equally grave. Except for instances such as perjury or libel, lying is not a crime.

Racism is an attitude that may lead to acts we call racist. But nobody pertinent to our political life today advocates racism or racist acts. The intentional killing of a member of the human family — which is what happens in every abortion — is the most pressing social justice question of our time. Mr. Kmiec’s candidate advocates an unlimited right to abortion.

The question is that of justice for unborn children. When one candidate supports the unlimited abortion license and another wants the abortion question returned to the states, it is disingenuous to suggest that they are equally pro-choice. And to say that the first candidate’s position is closer to a Catholic understanding of subsidiarity is, I am sorry to say, risible. Catholic teaching and the mandate of justice is that all members of the human family, born and unborn, be protected in law. To deny that protection is a grave injustice.

Buy the Register to get the full story.

After more thought and prayer, I decided to remove this video. Let’s encourage people to make humorous yet non-vulgar or uncharitable videos and such!

No.

A scarce majority of people know that Sen. Obama is pro-abortion, and less than a majority know that Sen. McCain is pro-life.

Well, let this be one more webpage that helps people know the truth:

Senator Barack Obama: Pro-abortion.
Senator John McCain: Pro-life.

Senator Obama has changed his position, especially recently, on many issues.  Why?

His flip-flops have largely been ones that are positioning him more towards “the middle” rather than “radically leftist”, which obviously is beneficial toward trying to appeal to a broader portion of the population to get elected and become the President of the United States.

But the question then is: What does Sen. Obama really stand for, what principles will he not back down from?

I certainly would like to know the answer.  And perhaps we can find out if Sen. Obama will step up to Sen. McCain’s challenge to town hall debates, something which he said he wanted to do but hasn’t actually done.

Sen. McCain is far from a perfect candidate, but at least from his long record of service to our country we know where he stands.

“Up until now, no one in the United States has dared to promote the maxim that everything is legitimized in the interests of society, an impious maxim which seems to have been invented in an age of liberty simply to justify every future tyrant.” (Democracy in America, de Toqueville, 1840)

I like this guy. He sees the danger in the false notion so frequently referenced by scientists these days that, because we have the capacity to do something, we ought to do that thing so as to gain knowledge and better ourselves. I heard that notion professed at the Capitol often by scientists who were asking for funding for embryo-destructive research, and it’s dangerous dangerous dangerous. Because, if we should do everything we can for the sake of scientific research, then every American becomes a potential research subject, if they don’t have the wealth or physical age or intelligence to protect them. And, then, science does become a tyrant, subjecting everything in its path to dominance.

Democracy in America, published in 1840:

“America is still the country in the world where the Christian religion has retained the greatest real power over people’s souls and nothing better shows how useful and natural religion is to man, since the country where it exerts the greatest sway is also the most enlightened and free. [Americans] believe religion necessary for the maintenance of republican institutions…they so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds, and this is not one of those sterile ideas bequeathed by the past to the present nor one which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live. I have seen Americans coming together to dispatch priests to the new states in the West in order to found schools and churches. Their fear is that religion might disappear in the depths of the forest and that the people growing up there might be less fitted for freedom than the society they had left.”

This conviction regarding the necessary link between Christianity and freedom makes sense. Christianity is the only religion which teaches equality between every person and promotes respect for individual conscience. Freedom is safe when citizens follow the teachings of a God who tells them that they cannot treat other citizens in certain ways because those other citizens are made in God’s image; in Christianity, certain rights are completely protected–the right to life, the right to seek Truth, the right to educate one’s family without coercion, and so forth–and citizens are free, therefore, from the tyranny of government upon their persons. But, when the ideas of a nation and its government are not influenced by Christian principles, no one is safe. The government decides which rights belong to persons and families and can take them away if it wishes.

I’m not sure what factor is responsible for the change in our country from the notion that Christianity is necessary for freedom to the notion that Christianity threatens freedom and must be silenced from the public square. But, I don’t like it.

A very honorable gesture, returning the Order of Canada medal given to their founder, (Servant of God) Catherine de Hueck Doherty, in protest of the awarding of the honor to the father of abortion in Canada, Dr. Morgentaler.

Learn more about the Madonna House Catholic community.

“Congress was assembled in Independence Hall, at Philadelphia, when the Declaration was adopted…on the morning of the day of its adoption, the venerable bell man ascended to the steeple, and a little boy was placed at the door of the Hall to give him notice when the vote should be concluded. The old man waited long at his post, say ‘They will never do it, they will never do it.’ Suddenly, a loud shout came up from below, and there stood the blue-eyed boy, clapping his hands and shouting, ‘Ring! Ring!!’ Grasping the iron tongue of the bell, backward and forward he hurled it a hundred times, proclaiming, ‘Liberty to the land and to the inhabitants thereof.”

(The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, BJ Lossing, 1848)

Happy and blessed 4th of July to you!

What a great country we live in; for all of its problems, it is great in countless ways, and I am grateful to God for the United States of America.

I’ve been reading Original Intent, by David Barton, and I am on the chapter where he describes the “misleading metaphor” of the “separation of Church and State”.

We all know this phrase, and I think if you asked most people, they would say it means that religious symbols and arguments have no place in State institutions or State-sponsored events.  This understanding is prevalent due in large part to the success of groups like the ACLU, and it is gravely erroneous.

The result is that the ACLU has succeeded in erasing markers of religious history and influence from hundreds if not thousands of State objects with their wrong arguments, based around the deliberate misinterpretation of the “separation of Church and State”.

So what does it mean?  Who said it, and when, and to whom, and in what context?

President Thomas Jefferson said it in an exchange of letters with the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.  The Baptists were happy Jefferson was elected President because there were groups in the U.S. pushing for a State-sponsored Christian denomination, in particular the Episcopalians and Congregationalists, and these groups interpreted the First Amendment as aiding their arguments for a national denomination.

The Baptists, and Thomas Jefferson, did not want a State-sponsored denomination because, among other things, it would indicate that the God-given, inalienable right to free exercise of religion was really a right that depended on the government’s whim.

And Thomas Jefferson and the other founders intended the First Amendment exactly to oppose a State-sponsored denomination and prevent the government from meddling in the religious practice of its people.

Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.  I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [emphasis mine]

Jefferson affirms that religious liberties were inalienable, God-given rights, and that the wall of separation between Church and State was “not to limit religious activities in public; rather, they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.”

Isn’t it interesting that groups like the ACLU have twisted this phrase to suit their own atheistic agenda?  We must educate ourselves and turn back the tide to reestablish the true foundations of our nation and the freedoms we possess at the labor, sweat, blood, and tears of our forefathers.

Lord, please bless our country and every person in it!

Minnesota recently released its latest abortion statistics, and Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece, responded cogently:

“While African Americans comprise only 4.5 percent of Minnesota’s population, black women received almost 25 percent of the abortions performed on Minnesotans,” stated Dr. King. “Nationally, black women are 4.8 times more likely to have an abortion than white women. It’s hard to believe, as the abortion lobby would have you believe, that this discrepancy is caused strictly by economics.”

“Abortion has been a scourge on all Americans, but particularly African Americans,” added Dr. King. “The numbers speak for themselves. The abortion industry has targeted minority neighborhoods for years. It’s not only time that our leaders investigated why this is happening, it’s time they stopped indirectly subsidizing these killings by giving our money to businesses that do abortions.”

So why does Sen. Obama unabashedly support the killing of persons, the most innocent and vulnerable, of his own race, especially when they are being targeted and performed at a rate grossly disproportionate to the population at large?

Remember, we give Planned Parenthood over $300 million each year from our hard-earned money. To put that number in perspective, my company, which employs about 5,000 people working full-time in countries all over the world, in recent years had about $600 million in total revenue (representing all money we brought in in a year).

Unsurprisingly, you may remember that Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit corporation, posted profits of $60 million last year alone.

This past week one of my coworkers who supports Obama claimed that abortion is not an important issue in the minds of Americans, but the facts prove otherwise:

A new report shows voters are interested in the position Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama takes on abortion. The Internet traffic monitoring firm HitWise indicates abortion is now the number one political issue voters are looking for when they conduct a search on Obama’s campaign web site.

Abortion, as we see in this statistic, and as we saw in the unjust examination of Justices Alito and Roberts by the Democratic leaders during their nomination hearings, is a crucially important issue to the very highest leaders of our country and to each of us, who all know at least one person who has had an abortion and suffered from its consequences.

From the informative FRC blog.

Initially, it sounded good: Sen. Obama said he would support the continuation of Bush’s federal funding for faith-based organizations, but I hadn’t read the details of it.

In reality, sadly, it seems that this is a way of Sen. Obama to appear to support faith-based initiatives as they are now and thus draw in more “values voters” like me, but actually the groups that do such good work and benefit from these funds will be hamstrung by Sen. Obama’s alterations.

From the Family Research Council:

It appears that in yesterday’s Update we gave Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) faith-based policy too much credit. Working from an Associated Press story released before the candidate made his Zanesville speech, FRC included the quote that Obama intended to “support the ability [of religious groups] to hire and fire based on faith.”

We regret the error. But we also regret what Sen. Obama actually said, which is that his administration would not protect the religious rights of faith-based groups to make employment decisions based on their moral convictions when they are using tax dollars. In his talk, Obama put his “Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” in stark contrast to President Bush’s current program. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them–or against the people you hire–based on your religion,” he said.

Despite the clear and present danger this would pose to church-based outreach programs, Rev. Jim Wallis, President of the liberal Sojourners, wasted no time announcing his support for the plan, even implying that “Obama’s proposals also contain necessary protections for religious liberty…” The reality is that Obama’s interpretation would be a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.

In contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) released a statement today supporting the rights of religious organizations that apply for government funding to “hire people who share their faith.” While Wallis was out in force to promote Obama’s “faith-based” plan, he was silent when the Illinois senator endorsed same-sex “marriage” to the Alice B. Toklas Pride Breakfast last week. In addition to calling the California man-woman marriage amendment “discriminatory and divisive,” the senator “congratulated” members of the audience “who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.” As a self-described evangelical, surely Rev. Wallis would agree that tradition, like all other major religions, rejects the redefinition of marriage.

“This band is perfect/just don’t scratch the surface…”
- Duran Duran

The media ignored the march on Washington made by Black pastors and leaders against Planned Parenthood; their voices should be heard.

Gangs are replacing families as the primary unit of socialization in the UK, says the London police chief; why is the family so important to forming children?

The stunning South Dakota court ruling that abortionists must tell women that the abortion they are going to submit to will terminate the life of their baby.

So said Senator Obama in his Father’s Day speech. And I totally agree, both on this point and on his broader message that Black fathers who have abandoned their parental responsibilities need to truly be fathers to their children.

But if fatherhood begins at conception, doesn’t that mean that the baby’s life begins at conception? Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council made a video asking this same question:

Fides et Ratio: Faith and Reason.

Don’t be impressed that I know Latin because I don’t; however, the Latin I do know is from the fact that the encyclicals and letters of the Popes have Latin titles. Fides et Ratio is an excellent one where Pope John Paul II explored the relationship between faith and reason in religion, philosophy, and society.

This post is in response to the recent flap between Dr. James Dobson, a prominent Evangelical, and Senator Obama, where Dr. Dobson criticized Senator Obama’s remarks about the Bible and how Christian faith should or should not affect the laws of our country.

A few years ago Sen. Obama spoke to a liberal Christian group, referenced some Old Testament Hebrew laws (don’t eat shellfish, etc.) to make the point that using the Bible to guide law-making doesn’t make sense. He also pointed out that even if we were all Christians, would we teach Dr. Dobson’s Christianity or Al Sharpton’s in schools?

He said that religious persons must frame their arguments in ways accessible to all people. That is very true! However, that doesn’t mean that arguments involving faith and theology should be excluded from the discussion.

Most of Senator Obama’s characterizations here are straw-man arguments. Dr. Dobson rightly critiqued him for making these statements, but the reasoning he gave for why Sen. Obama’s arguments are wrong were not the best ones.

No one is talking about teaching the Christian faith in public schools (that’s one straw-man). Further, the Christian faith and its theology have developed over the centuries in the Church: Senator Obama would do well to pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and read the moral law spelled out clearly; he won’t see anything about shellfish; he will see that slavery is condemned, and then he should ask himself how it was that a religion came to such reasonable moral teachings.

He will also see how faith and reason both have parts to play, for example, from Fides et Ratio (52):

If the Magisterium has spoken out more frequently since the middle of the last century, it is because in that period not a few Catholics felt it their duty to counter various streams of modern thought with a philosophy of their own. At this point, the Magisterium of the Church was obliged to be vigilant lest these philosophies developed in ways which were themselves erroneous and negative.

The censures were delivered even-handedly: on the one hand, fideism (59) and radical traditionalism,(60) for their distrust of reason’s natural capacities, and, on the other, rationalism (61) and ontologism (62) because they attributed to natural reason a knowledge which only the light of faith could confer.

The positive elements of this debate were assembled in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, in which for the first time an Ecumenical Council—in this case, the First Vatican Council—pronounced solemnly on the relationship between reason and faith. The teaching contained in this document strongly and positively marked the philosophical research of many believers and remains today a standard reference-point for correct and coherent Christian thinking in this regard.

Pope John Paul Ii denounces fideism, adherence to a faith without engaging one’s God-given reasoning ability. We see modern examples of fideism in radical Muslims who murder innocent people and themselves for the promise of an eternity of carnal pleasure in Heaven (no doubt many have this motivation and others (hatred, money, etc.), but I think this promise is a big part of their actions).

At the same time, rationalism is condemned as well, attempting to rely on reason alone to discern the truth of all things.

JPII continued:

Against all forms of rationalism, then, there was a need to affirm the distinction between the mysteries of faith and the findings of philosophy, and the transcendence and precedence of the mysteries of faith over the findings of philosophy.

Against the temptations of fideism, however, it was necessary to stress the unity of truth and thus the positive contribution which rational knowledge can and must make to faith’s knowledge: “Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”.(65)

I would love to hear an intelligent discussion between Senator Obama and Dr. Dobson (or maybe George Weigel or Archbishop Burke or Chaput) on the topic of faith and reason.

However, that discussion will probably never happen. Why not? Well, we as Americans like sound bites, and quick repartees, catchy slogans, and short, funny remarks. Also, I am not sure that Senator Obama has the philosophical education to discuss this matter, in spite of obtaining a political science degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard. Unfortunately, I think the education he received did not contain much on the natural law, which is the law written on every human heart, nor on how faith and reason complement each other perfectly.

Dr. Dobson also didn’t engage Senator Obama on the grounds of faith and reason, explaining how the two can and should be used in conjunction to discern the truth and make wise judgments. Instead, he attacked Obama’s understanding of Christian theology and the Bible.

Even though Dr. Dobson is correct in criticizing Obama’s vague and erroneous references to the Bible, which show his beliefs are against the Christian faith taught by the apostles and transmitted faithfully in the Church, it would be much better if he brought up the arguments against Obama’s positions on the family, abortion, same-sex unions, and stem-cell research based on the natural law.

Fortunately, there is an resurgence in the number of schools teaching Thomistic philosophy (i.e. based on St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, etc.), bringing back the “Great Books” programs, where classics are read and discussed, and also people in churches and schools are discovering the philosophy of Pope John Paul II and his developments on the personalistic norm, as well as his brilliant writings (Fides et Ratio, Veritatis Splendor, and so on).

When persons of faith are well formed in these important teachings, they become dynamos creating a more human, more just society. Let us pray that our country’s leaders, of all political parties, will learn these principles.

Representative Dan Boren from Oklahoma announced he would not endorse Senator Obama’s White House bid, and refreshingly, he candidly calls it like it is, saying that Obama is “the most liberal Senator” and that his record “does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion”.

This is a startlingly honest statement from someone within the Democratic party about their own candidate, especially when Senator Obama touts how he will bring people together and end divisive government partisan politics. In fact, the opposite has been true; who has been more partisan than him on the issues, especially radical pro-abortion support?

The Democrats continue to stonewall the nominees for judges, breaking their promises to approve even small numbers of them; they are acting unjustly and depriving the United States of qualified judges, just because they are Republican.

Will Obama change this? He hasn’t so far, and what he has done was to vote against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito on the Supreme Court, though both men were well-qualified and have proven themselves wise, prudent judges. He voted against them because they refused to say that they would support Roe vs. Wade.

Kudos to Rep. Boren for standing up for the truth and for his constituents’ convictions.

Okay, so it’s time to make the official announcement that I am preparing to apply to UT this winter for a graduate degree in Government, God willing. I’ll talk more about it later, but I say this to explain why I am spending my mornings reading de Toqueville’s classic, “Democracy in America”, published 1840.

Alexis de Toqueville must have been a brilliant man. I have consistently been impressed with his insight into our culture and system of government, as well as his grasp of our weaknesses. These weaknesses are few, and it is evident from his writing that he profoundly admires the political genius which makes the United States great.

With that said, I read this yesterday and was amazed by his foresight. He saw then that the strength of our civil society rested, among other things, upon our homogeneous national identity, writing:

“To ensure the long life of a confederation, a uniformity of civilization is no less necessary than a uniformity of needs in the diverse peoples forming it…In the United States, one fact which admirably supports the existence of the federal government is that the different states have roughly similar interests, common origins and language as well as the same level of civilization, all of which almost always produce an easy mutual agreement.”

Americans in 1840 were all generally Christian, educated (at least minimally), and of European descent. So, when we read the Constitution’s words ensuring a separation of Church and State, we all knew that meant the government would not restrict the free exercise of religion; but, it doesn’t mean that anymore. And, when we read the beautiful words about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, we all knew that meant life for all the innocent, in the womb or in the hospice bed; but, it doesn’t mean that anymore.

Because, times have changed, and we don’t share the same homogeneity of ideas. We have the “culture wars” now and political polemics. We have same-sex “marriage” legalized by the courts in California, despite 60% of the population voting otherwise, while Texas refuses to recognize such a marriage. We have the US Supreme Court upholding the federal law banning partial-birth abortion, and the state of Virginia passing a law allowing the abortion practice. It’s a political mess.

What does de Toqueville say happens when conflict ensues between the states or between the federal and state jurisdiction? It’s definitely not good.

However, in view of the fact that I am a member of Regnum Christi, one of whose charisms is proactive hope, I can’t end on that gloomy note. There is hope, so much of it. The homeschooling movement, the (now) simple majority of young people who are pro-life, the holy Pope who leads the Church and holy priests who serve us. Let’s keep calling our legislators and praying for those in authority. Let’s keep working. TKC!

And is hitting Britain and Canada hard.

In Britain, Catholic Charities adoption service has to close down after 120 years of good work because they refuse to place children with homosexual people.

In Canada, people are being fined, threatened, and have had their right to free speech taken away by Canadian bureaucrats simply by saying that sexual acts with people of the same sex are morally wrong. (More here also).

These attacks on marriage and the family are coming to our shores, too, unless we stop them. Senator Obama, if elected, will advance them further at every opportunity. Senator McCain and the Republican party will fight against them.

Remember, anything that has to do with a person’s sexuality and how they act in regards to it is a moral behavior. Moral behaviors are not intrinsic traits like whether a person is black or white, Honduran or Italian, or even male or female, but rather are behaviors that can be controlled by the person.

I’m not one of them.

Neither is Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Colorado. But the newly minted group who named themselves “Roman Catholic for Obama” saw fit to selectively quote him in their promotional literature.

He responded in a charitable and clear way:

In the years after the [President Jimmy] Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

Emphasis mine.

Archbishop Chaput quotes from their website:

[Catholics for Obama:] “After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas. “

[Chaput again:] I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate….

Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.

This past Easter, during my self-imposed moratorium on (constructively) critical posts, Senator Obama made the comment that he didn’t want his daughters to be punished with a baby if they had sex and got pregnant.

Horrible isn’t it? But I once looked at children in the exact same way and feared few things more than fathering a child and that child “ruining my life”. That is exactly how I thought about it: It would “ruin” my life.

Why? Because I had plans, big ones, to make a great impact on the human race, solving scientific challenges and propelling our species across the solar system and the galaxy. I was going to do this and that and become a great man, and having a child would mess all that up because I would have to pay for the child’s care and upbringing and “it” would take up all my time and ruin my plans.

I wouldn’t mind having a few children, one day, when I was ready to do so and had everything all lined up. So I can understand how Senator Obama thinks about children and the possibility of his daughters having one someday, out of wedlock and unwanted.

Children are a punishment because they ruin your life if you get pregnant (or get your girlfriend pregnant) when you don’t want one.

What is the common thread through all these statements: They are all me-focused. It’s all about me and what I want and what I am going to do. But when another person, a little baby, defenseless, comes into being through my actions, suddenly it’s not all about me because this baby is a person who has the right to live and to live long enough to decide for themselves what they want to do.

But with legal abortion, I can decide that that child, that other person, dies, and do so with legal impunity, though the emotional, spiritual, and sometimes physical scars that it leaves are deep and ugly.

Faithful Catholics believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach all truth, that she cannot err in matters of faith and morals. I assented to this belief with all my heart when I entered the Catholic Church as a convert 7 years ago as all converts do.

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches that abortion is always morally wrong, a grave evil. Senator Obama supports every form of abortion through all stages of the baby’s life in the womb, and even outside the womb if the baby manages to survive.

His belief directly contradicts the teaching of the Church and therefore of Christ.

Archbishop Chaput finishing the out-of-context quote that this group took from him:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

Senator McCain’s staff created a webpage contrasting his positions and actions on important issues and those of Senator Obama.

It is pretty good, but the information comparing the two on life issues like abortion and stem cell research, as well as on marriage and things like child pornography, are not on the main area but are instead relegated to the sidebar under the Values section.

I emailed Senator McCain’s campaign manager today to request that he make the Values section part of the main one so that more people will see it.  I encourage you to email him as well.  Here is my email so you can copy and paste it:

Hi Rick,

I am a McCain supporter in Texas and visited the Decision Center webpage; I think it is good how you spelled out the differences between Senator McCain and Senator Obama, however, I humbly suggest that you add the “Values” section found on the sidebar to the main page area so it is more clearly visible.

The Values section covers vitally important issues like abortion, marriage, stem cell research, etc., and for many Christian voters like myself, these issues are the main reason we are voting for McCain.

Thank you for your hard work and consideration,

Or, the Gospel of Barack Obama, by Mark Shea.

This article is over-the-top, but amazingly, the most over-the-top quotes are real ones from real people who are putting Obama on the level of the divine. Excerpts:

Gary Hart: “He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians . . . [he is] the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century.”

Eve Konstantine: “Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”

There are many more–it’s worth reading the full account linked to above–but the last one I will mention is by none other than Oprah Winfrey:

“We’re here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.”

I thought is was the fundamentalist religious right that was fanatical and irrational. At least however those of us who deify someone only deify God Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, rather than a fellow creature, human and frail.

So what would Senator Obama, the Defender of Truth and Justice in the Galaxy, bring if he were elected?

1. Two Supreme Court Justices who consider abortion a right and over one hundred activist liberal judges appointed to Federal courts.

2. Federally funded embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and animal-human “chimera” research. (Remember, these horrific experiments create and then destroy human beings; also, there have been zero treatments from embryonic stem cells, while 70+ treatments using adult stem cells helping thousands of people every year).

3. Federally funded abortion on demand, throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

4. Abortion in military hospitals and the reinstatement and probable increase of millions of dollars to fund abortion and sterilization overseas.

5. Regulatory attacks on pro-life doctors, nurses, clinics, and non-profit groups.

6. The repeal of conscience clause exceptions for doctors and pharmacists who don’t want to give out abortifacient drugs that kill babies in their mothers’ wombs.

7. The “Freedom of Choice Act”, a federal statute mandating abortion on demand in every state.

8. The end of abstinence education in favor of “you can’t control yourself, use a condom and the pill” education, euphemized as “comprehensive sex ed”.

9. The end of the highly successful ABc program in Africa that stresses Abstinence, Be faithful to your spouse, and only if you refuse to act responsibly by doing those things, use a condom.

10. The endorsement of same-sex unions, ostensibly stopping short of marriage, but as we have seen in California, same-sex “marriage” would be coming from his judicial appointees in the coming years everywhere.

(-National Catholic Register, May 18, 2008 edition, plus my additions)

This must be some of the “Unvarnished Truth” that Oprah Winfrey spoke of that Obama is immersed in.

People long for healing and hope, but these things are only found in Jesus Christ, not in Barack Obama.

Senator McCain sent this email today explaining what he wants to do in his first Presidential term:

My Friends,

We are all aware that next January, the political leadership of the United States will change significantly when a new president is sworn into our nation’s highest elected office. It is important that the candidates who seek to lead our country after President Bush define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity.

What I want to do is take a little time to describe what I hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things, but I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good president.

By January 2013, at the end of my first term as president, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won and Iraq is a functioning democracy. The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated and there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.

The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. Congress has lowered taxes and passed fundamental tax reform offering a choice in how taxes are filed. Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost jobs in the global economy they once believed were theirs for life, are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs.

Public education in the United States is much improved and test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country. Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history.

The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well.

Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them.

Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest.

This is the progress I want us to achieve during my presidency. These are the changes I am running for president to make. I want to leave office knowing that America is safer, freer and wealthier than when I was elected.

There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences, but it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands. Each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause and respectful of the goodness in each other. That is how most Americans treat each other. And it is how they want the people they elect to office to treat each other.

We cannot again leave our problems for another unluckier generation of Americans to fix after they have become even harder to solve. I’m not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. We are all compatriots. We are fellow Americans. I intend to prove myself worthy of the office, of our country and of your respect. I won’t judge myself by how many elections I’ve won. I won’t spend one hour of my presidency worrying more about my re-election than keeping my promises to the American people.

And now, I call on you to do your part in making this vision a reality. I am not presumptuous enough to think that I will be elected our next president without your help, and I humbly ask you today to make a contribution to my campaign of any amount to ensure my campaign is fully funded and able to take my message and vision directly to every American voter.

Sincerely,

John McCain

We saw another example today of activist judges changing the law based on their own opinions, grounded neither in natural law nor the common good in California as the same-sex marriage ban was struck down by a vote of 4-3 by the state’s Supreme Court.

Senator Obama will continue appointing such judges and justices whose political philosophy is one of “whatever I have come to think about something is what the law should be” regardless of what the Constitution actually says and the framers of it actually intended.

Today the National Abortion Rights Action League (who decided that going by NARAL was smarter because it got rid of the word “abortion” in their name) endorsed Obama.

Obama had this to say:

“There are few more tireless defenders of women’s rights in this country than NARAL Pro-Choice America and I’m proud to accept their support,” Sen. Obama said. “For decades, they have worked in the courthouse, in the legislature, and in the streets to make sure that women have the right to choose. This is a fundamental civil right that I’ve fought to protect in Illinois and in Washington, that’s being threatened by Senator McCain, and that I’ll be fighting in the months ahead to make secure today, tomorrow, and always.”

The perennial question: Make sure they have the right to choose what? Be honest and come out and say it, Senator Obama.

The fundamental right, Senator Obama claims, is to terminate the life of your baby. Your baby has no rights because NARAL and Senator Obama are working with all their might to make sure that babies are never considered persons so that they can be deprived of their right to life “today, tomorrow, and always”.

Could this be, the land of the free?

This horror continues while tens of thousands of couples–right here in the our country–long to adopt a baby and instead pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt in Russia, China, Guatemala, etc. or pay that much to adopt one of the few babies here in the U.S. which come up for adoption.

Katie and I continue to hope for the gift of a child, the gift of a child, but if God so chooses not to give us one from our marital union, we will join these tens of thousands of couples in waiting for a baby to adopt as our own.

I received this email from Senator John McCain’s Presidential campaign today (excerpt):

One of these challenges is global climate change. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. Good stewardship, prudence and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge and act quickly. And if we are wrong and climate change is not a threat, all we are doing is leaving a better planet for our children and lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

That is why I have proposed a cap-and-trade system that would set limits on greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging the development of low-cost compliance options. This is a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies and strengthen the economy.

I like what he says here.  There is still debate about global warming (or the new more ambiguous but all-encompassing term, “climate change”), but we also should act with good stewardship of our environment, something that I think we are woefully failing at currently.

Let’s take prudent action as a country to begin to address the stewardship problems.  Ultimately, it will require changing our thinking and our habits as individuals to make a big difference, and changing is hard for us, so making reasonable incentives for being a better steward is a good way to go I think.

Senator McCain, the Republican candidate, will appoint constructionist judges and Justices who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Senators Clinton and Obama will appoint liberal activist judges and Justices who legislate from the bench, even against the will of the majority of the people.

Both Clinton and Obama voted against Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, two highly qualified candidates, simply because those men believed in the right of all Americans to life, which Obama and Clinton ostensibly support, except for unborn children.

These judges and Justices have the power to radically affect our lives and the future of our nation. Senator McCain is the best choice for appointing qualified men and women who will defend the God-given, inalienable rights that all persons possess and which our country should justly promote.