The 2016 Election: The First Issue

The 2016 Election: 

The First Issue

          Last week we were treated to the first two of the Republican presidential debates.  The distractions of Donald Trump notwithstanding (I can not judge him or his motives, but every time he speaks, a Trump presidency seems more ridiculous), I liked some of what we heard, especially regarding candidates’ pro-life commitments.

          But before I try to navigate my way through the immense field of candidates, many of whom I have been a long-time fan of, I find the legitimacy of the upcoming election to be a much more pressing issue.  I say this because if the 2016 election is anything like 2012, it is already over (stolen).

          Although corruption in politics is par for the course (Trump admitted to buying influence during the debate), and even election fraud is nothing new, in my opinion, 2012 was a masterpiece of dishonesty.  Here are some things to consider:

•  Some precincts got over 100% turnout.  Not even the best get-out-the-vote campaigns can do that honestly.

• Democratic election workers were caught on video advising people how they could cast votes in more than one state.

• Voting machines were routinely documented as changing people’s “Romney” votes to “Obama” votes.

• In certain precincts (in Philadelphia, for example) Obama got thousands of votes, and Romney got zero.  That is, supposedly, not even one person out of tens of thousands cast a Romney vote.  That is impossible anywhere in the United States.  By contrast, in Romney’s strongest precinct, a small town in Texas, he received 116 votes, and Obama still got 2.

          These are just a few of the “irregularities,” as I remember them.  An Internet search should be able to provide you with details and documentation.  With so many local people involved, it is impossible to pinpoint the blame, and even in a coordinated effort, there are many players, so I am not casting aspersions on Mr. Obama or anyone else.  It should also be pointed out that there have been instances in recent years of similar fraud on the Republican side, whether to the same degree I do not know.

          The point is that we are in a country that is dying and we have a major election coming up, but we have very little assurance that this election will be any more valid than those that kept Saddam Hussein in power for so long.  So our first order of business should be to demand a fair election.  Our Congressmen should hear of our concerns, as should our Secretaries of State.

          Vigilance is the price of freedom.  The dishonest will try to have people dismissed as imaginative conspiracy theorists, but nothing is as sure as corruption when it comes to the seeking of power.  And we need not cast about wild accusations, just let people know we are watching.  And groups like Freedom Watch and others should begin now to expose irregularities and demand an honest election.  Then hopefully we can trust that our decision of which candidate to support will at least mean something.

The Supreme Court's Decision - Now What? (part 2)

The Supreme Court’s Decision – 

Now What? (part 2)

350z33 at English Wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

          In my first post about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision redefining marriage, I focused on our personal response, especially with individuals in our lives who see the court’s ruling as a cause for celebration.  In this post, I’d like to tackle some of the larger, societal questions I mentioned, such as: What does it mean?, and, What do we do next?

          First of all, the Supreme Court’s decision does not mean that now same-sex “marriage” is a reality.  It never can be a reality.  The Supreme Court did not create marriage, so it has no authority to recreate it.  However, the decision does mean that the marriage law of our land is now divorced from reality.

          Such an event is always a major problem.  When it comes to marriage, it is an even greater problem.  The state has always been concerned with marriage because it is an institution that provides stability for children, and a legal connection for them with their parents.  The stable family in which a child has a right to the presence of both its mother and father is the building block of any healthy society.  By disregarding this truth - the purpose of the family, and the legitimate needs of children – that building block has been pulled out from the foundation of our society.  If our nation lasts, with any of its former strength, for long after this, it will be the first in history to do so.

          That being said, the Roe v Wade decision 40 years ago was even more devastating than this one.  Our culture has been on life support ever since.  Is it any surprise that Sister Lucia reportedly said that the final confrontation between Our Lord and satan will be over the family?

          She also said that those who defend the sanctity of marriage and the family will be opposed.  This is what we have to look forward to now.  There will shortly be an attack on the tax-exempt status of churches over this issue, and faithful Catholic schools will be fighting for their lives.  Even we as individuals had better be ready for increased suffering.

          We wonder whether the United States could turn into Canada, where simply defending traditional marriage can have a person fined for hate speech and even thrown into jail.  At one level, we would think it could not.  I consider all the court cases involving the Ku Klux Klan, in which free speech rights were upheld by the courts.  Essentially, the mantra was: “We hate what you say, but we will fight for your right to say it.”

          Does that still apply, though?  Judges are no longer faithful defenders of the law.  They are simply politicians like the rest.  Time will tell which freedoms will be defended and which will be discarded.  In all this, we should also remember that Sister Lucia, in commenting on this great battle, echoed the words of Our Lord: “Do not be afraid.”  The head of the serpent has already been crushed.  We are on the winning team.  Our goal is to stay faithful.  Save our souls, and as many others as we can.  The victory is the Lord’s.  (Let us also remember, when persecution comes, that vengeance is also the Lord’s; our call is to forgive.)

          So the long battle for religious liberty continues.  A great example of what needs to be done on that front was given by the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who responded to the court’s ruling by issuing a directive protecting religious liberty.  Especially with a Presidential election coming, this must be a non-negotiable issue for us.

          One important thing to remember is that as much damage as the Obergefell decision will do, those five judges aren’t really as important as we all make them out to be.  The decision did not create a disaster for our culture, it only revealed where our culture already is.  A far more important meeting of far more important people will be happening this September in Philadelphia, when the Church holds its World Meeting of Families.

          This best answers the question: What do we do next?  Of course, the Church’s teaching on marriage will not (and can not) change.  But will this challenge be met head on?  I am not looking as much for condemnations (necessary as they often are) as for a clear positive vision.

          The problem is not that our country will have same-sex “marriage.”  The problem is that our culture (the entire Western world) has lost a true vision of what it is to be human; what it is to be a man or a woman; what marriage and the family is all about; and where our destiny lies.  We need to be reminded, and who, besides the Church of Jesus Christ, can do that?

          Now I do not presume to have even remotely the prudence or understanding of our shepherds, so I will simply pray, trusting them to their task.

          But I would love to see a massive educational campaign, that becomes a primary focus in each of our parishes, to restore in our hearts God’s vision of who we truly are. 

          And that vision is beautiful, far more beautiful than anything the secular culture has to offer.  It is not about “Thou shalt not,” but rather, “Thou can become…”  Everyone is welcome; everyone is invited to be the glorious saint God has destined us to be, if only we respond to the grace He offers.  This effort should not set us at odds with any group, rather it should give hope to all groups. 

Our culture demands that people be defined by their attractions, or even worse, their sexual habits.  We Catholics can see much deeper.  We can see every person as a precious child of God, beautiful but broken.  We are all beautiful but broken.  You struggle with same-sex attraction?  Fine, I have my own struggles, and I will not measure mine against yours to exalt myself.  I always stand in awe when I see someone shouldering a cross that I know I’d never be strong enough to carry.  And if I can help them carry their cross, whether it is same-sex attraction or whatever, and they can help me carry mine, perhaps we can both become saints together.  Whatever our bishops decide in September (and let us not forget to pray for them!), that can be a task for all of us.

The Veto of Arizona's SB 1062

The Veto of Arizona’s SB 1062

Yesterday, the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, vetoed SB 1062, a bill which would have allowed business owners to deny services to people based on their own deeply held religious convictions.  The bill sparked passionate reaction on both sides.

Proponents of the bill said that it is necessary to protect religious liberty, while opponents said it would have enshrined prejudice against homosexual people in law.  Republicans across the country, of course, were terrified of the bill, and urging a veto.  Many organizations were vocal in opposition, including some loud groups whose favorite political tactic is intimidation.  However, a bill of this magnitude should not be weighed by political calculations, but rather by moral ones.

I haven’t looked closely enough at how the bill is written to know whether it warranted a signature or a veto, but it seems to me that the underlying issue at hand is really not all that complicated.

The Church consistently teaches the dignity of every human person (regardless of sexual practice), and opposes unjust discrimination.  However, it also teaches that homosexual behavior is objectively sinful, and that there is no such thing as gay “marriage.”  Any proper understanding of religious liberty should free people from having to participate in or support activity they find morally objectionable.

Therefore, given our current climate, there is definitely a need for a law that protects people from providing goods and services that support or promote such activity, such as a wedding photographer being forced to work at a same-sex “wedding.” 

However, a person is not defined by his sexual identity, and it seems to me that discrimination that has no bearing on that activity should not be permitted.

Now, one of the most difficult things to do is to take politicians at their word.  Many are corrupt and easily bought.  Even many ethical politicians see lying, or at least “spin,” as a necessary tool of the trade.  However, though I do not live in Arizona and scrutinize Governor Brewer, she has not given me reason to doubt her sincerity.  So it is with every benefit of the doubt that I examine some of what she said upon announcing her veto.

There were two comments that particularly struck me.  (Others, of course, are relevant, as well, from a political and legal standpoint, and have been analyzed by others.)  The first comment of which I took note was her statement that the bill was too broadly written.  That very well may be true.  If so, it should be rewritten and passed again, with improvements.  I would have liked to see Ms. Brewer call for that.

The second statement was troubling.  Ms. Brewer seemed to imply that the protections in the bill are not necessary.  That sentiment is ludicrous.  Given our current climate, nothing is more necessary at this time, in every state.  The red herring of “gay rights” is a powerful tool being used to persecute Christians (and many others) all over the Western world.  Doubtless, there are many who see it as the key to destroying the Church.  They will never do that, but people willing to stand up for truth had better be ready to suffer for it.

On a human level, what happened yesterday is likely to scare most politicians.  But I pray that there are some heroic leaders out there who will see the grave necessity of a bill similar to SB 1062.  It needs to be written properly, respecting each person’s dignity, but it needs to be passed now, everywhere.

Go For the Knockout

Go for the Knockout

It’s said that you shouldn’t kick a man when he’s down.  That’s good, Christian advice.  But anyone who’s ever seen a prize fight also knows that when a fighter has his opponent weak and on the ropes, he goes for the knockout.

We, as people of God, are in one heck of a fight, and at least one of our adversaries is on the ropes.  We need to go for the knockout.

I’m talking about the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare.  There are many reasons for Catholics to oppose this law.  First, and most obviously, by funding abortion and forcing Christians to violate their consciences by participating in objectionable activities, the law can be defined as objectionably evil.

There are other problems with it, as well.  Its movement toward government-run health care is a dangerous trend and violates the social justice principle of subsidiarity.  The establishment of death panels, only a glimpse of what’s to come, I believe, makes little account of the dignity of every human person.  And as the law has begun to take effect, many of the problems that opponents predicted are coming to bear.

The law is on the ropes.  Just last week we saw another delay in the implementation of a key part.  Perhaps this was a prudent act to improve its implementation.  But certainly Democrats are excited that much of the pain to come won’t hit until after the upcoming election.

The stated goal of providing health insurance and quality care for everyone is a laudable one.  The problem is that Obamacare is not the way to get there.  Unfortunately, there have been many alternate proposals in recent years, none of which have been given proper consideration in Washington, or coverage by the media.

As the election season comes upon us, however, it is time to make our move, to go for the knockout.  Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever.  We must actively promote alternate ideas, and support candidates willing to repeal Obamacare.

As Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and others fight in court for our religious freedoms, we need to support groups like the Thomas More Society and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

We need to get educated, write letters, call talk shows, canvas neighborhoods, and put our money where our mouth is, as we are able.  Another key element is working to ensure the integrity of our elections, which has been rightly called into question.  It is important that we contact our Secretary of State, for whichever state in which we live, and demand that the nonsense of 2012 is not repeated.  We can support project veritas, which is on the ground seeking legitimate election results.

And most of all, we must do everything with Christian charity.  We are not driven by a desire simply to repeal Obamacare, but to replace it, with a truly moral, compassionate solution that respects religious liberty and the right to life, provides quality health care services and coverage to all people without consideration of their “worth,” and that is implementable.  It is quite a job, but if we “work as though all depends on us and pray as though all depends on God,” we can have good reason for hope.   

True Extremism

True Extremism

"Who are they? Are they these extreme abolitionists, who are anti-slavery, and favor the equal rights for all people? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, they have no place in this state.” – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

Okay, so that’s not exactly what Mr. Cuomo said, although it seems 150 years ago, it might have been. Because 150 years ago, the fundamental human rights issue in the United States was the end of slavery and the equal protection under the law of all people, regardless of color.  Today, it is the end to abortion and the right to life of all people, regardless of age or “desirability.”

And yet, the comment above was, in fact, launched by Mr. Cuomo against those of us who are right-to-life.  My purpose is not to attack Mr. Cuomo.  He is a politician, and he is playing politics as he prepares for a reelection bid.  It is sad, but it is not abnormal.  (And to be fair, he did backpedal a little, and "clarify".)  I will simply pray for him and leave it at that.

However, the sickening thing about this episode is what can, in the public square, be considered extremism.  Those who believe in the dignity of every human life, who believe the most innocent among us should have the right to be born, can be told there is no place for us in one of these United States?  Politics or not, the governor’s words are one of the most blatant examples of extremism I can remember, and that’s saying something.  But I doubt anyone wants to put money up against his being reelected.

I started this article with the quote I did because it is a quote that could plausibly have been made 150 years ago.  Today we would see it for what it is.  May the day soon come when Mr. Cuomo’s comments would be seen by all for what they really are.  And may his heart be converted.  There are no saints (save one) who are not repentant sinners.

The Double Standard that Keeps our System Alive

The Double Standard which

Keeps our System Alive

Last week, Paul Kengor had an interesting commentary on Barack Obama’s giving of the Medal of Freedom to feminist attorney Gloria Steinem.  The interesting part of the whole thing was what Steinem said upon receiving the award, that she hoped it would be an honor to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Even for pro-abortion liberals, Sanger is a bit of a problem.  It is well known that she was a pioneer of the eugenicist movement.  She intended reproductive control to be used in order to stop the breeding of “undesirables,” most notably the intellectually inferior, the poor, and blacks.

Mr. Kengor points out the irony of an African-American like Obama giving an award to someone who, upon receiving it, hoped it would honor a woman who had desired to wipe out African-Americans through eugenic policies.

To me, it called to mind the end of the career of former senator Trent Lott.  If you recall, on the occasion of fellow senator Strom Thurmond’s 100^th birthday celebration, Lott spoke admiringly of Thurmond and said that, had he been successful in his run for President in 1948 (as a Dixiecrat), we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.  These were nothing more than (stupid) hollow words meant as a blind tribute to a man that everyone was honoring at the event.

However, the media firestorm was fierce.  In 1948, Thurmond was a segregationist (a position he later abandoned), and Lott was painted as a racist for his comments.  The damage was more than he could fix, and his political career had been dealt a death blow.

What struck me was that, outside of Mr. Kengor, I have heard nothing about Steinem’s comments.  Segregation is bad, but eugenics is worse.  Lott praised a man who held segregationist views; Steinem praised a woman who wished to see African-Americans disappear from the planet.  Lott’s career is over; Steinem’s is untouched.  It’s not necessary to sit in judgment over Sanger’s soul to say that public praise of her “accomplishments” is utterly inappropriate.  (Hillary Clinton was given the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood in 2009.)  Sometimes I think liberals make comments that so blatantly flaunt the double standard which they enjoy just to show they can.

My concern is not about either Trent Lott’s position or Gloria Steinem’s.  It is about a media that has become worse than a bad joke.  It is intentionally making our populace ignorant.  How can we affect change?  Our choices of media consumption and economic consumption are important.  But so is speaking out, making sure the knowledge of the double standard is taken for granted as much as its practice.  And, as in everything else, first and foremost, prayer.

Kicking the Can

Kicking the Can

Mr. Obama’s “solution” to the problem of millions of Americans losing their health insurance despite his assurances, is to allow people to keep their plans for one year, and to allow companies the option of reinstating plans that they have recently cancelled due to his mandates for that year.

This is unacceptable, however.  There was nothing in his famous promise that said, “If you like your current plan, you can keep it for one year.”  Democrats and Republicans are both pushing him for a better, permanent solution that honors the words of his original promise, and we need to demand such a solution.

Force Obama's Hand

Force Obama's Hand

 

“Under my plan, if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it.”  These words were spoken by Barack Obama when he was selling Obamacare to the American people, and they are not true. 

Since Obamacare began taking effect, millions of Americans have received cancellation notices from their health insurance companies.  Usually this is because the plans that people have, and like, do not conform to Obamacare mandates.

People are rightly very angry.  Obama is getting pressure from Republicans and Democrats to do something about it.  And we have been assured by his spokesman Jay Carney that he will.  One thing he will not do, however, is simply let people keep their current plans, even if they want to, if those plans don’t comply with his mandates.

Congress, however, is trying to force the issue.  A bill called the Keep Your Health Plan Act is being voted on Friday in the House, which will allow people to do what Mr. Obama promised they would be able to do.  Former President Bill Clinton has endorsed such a plan and Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein is co-sponsoring a Senate version of the bill.

It is imperative that we pressure our representatives to pass this bill, and by a large margin.  If nothing else, we should force Obama to stand up before an angry public and veto a bill that simply seeks to make him keep a promise he repeatedly and forcefully made.

Hopefully the bill will garner enough support to override a veto.  The American people deserve it, and Mr. Obama needs to be taught a lesson about the value of a promise.

Note:  Although I believe these cancellations are a violation of Mr. Obama’s promise, at least as most people interpret it, in fairness I should state his position that grandfathers in plans in existence when the law was passed in 2010.  Any plans that have been created or changed from that time until now, as the law takes effect, from his perspective, can be cancelled without violating his promise.

Politics as Usual?

Politics as Usual?

You may have noticed a recent shift in the Republican narrative over the government shutdown.  At the time of the stalemate, we were told that the issue was Obamacare, and that Republicans would demand cooperation and negotiation on funding its implementation.  Now, all of a sudden, the discussion is about the debt.  Republicans have seemingly lost interest in Obamacare but are requesting debt reform if they are willing to raise the debt ceiling.  A resolution is now in sight.

Why the sudden change?  The analysis I’ve heard is that Republicans see polls blaming them for the shutdown and don’t expect Democrats to feel adequate pressure to negotiate on Obamacare.  It is the Republicans who will surrender.  To save face, though, they are changing the narrative to an issue over which they can expect a little give, and then both sides can claim to have gotten something out of the ordeal.

If that’s true, it is a betrayal.  We’ve heard the stories of real suffering caused by the shutdown, and for that reason I would like to see a solution as soon as possible.  But for Republicans to abandon the central issue and play misdirection with the debt is a joke.

This week I received a call from the RNC asking for money.  It’s been so long since I donated, I wonder why they keep calling, but perseverance is a virtue.  I explained why I wouldn’t be giving any money, but I was assured that the party is serious now, and will not be cowed on life, marriage and religious freedom issues.  I will be watching closely, making phone calls, and trying to hold Republicans accountable.

Why I am Leaving California

Why I am Leaving California

(one reason)

 

          I have written extensively against the evil law, SB 1172, passed in California last year that denies children access to reparative therapy for treatment of unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity disorder.  The wickedness has spread, most recently being signed into law by New Jersey governor Chris Christie.

          Last week on Catholic Answers, when the show was hosting Fr. Paul Check, the president of Courage, an apostolate that reaches out to people with same-sex attraction, there was a call from a wonderful mother whose young son, whom at times has expressed a possible vocation to the priesthood, told her he thought he might be homosexual.  This was clearly an unwanted struggle for the child.

          Fr. Check, an expert on this sort of thing, gave wonderful advice.  Among other things, he that as the young man was just entering adolescence, his comfort with masculinity and sexuality was still developing and very fluid.

          It got me thinking, though.  If this young man (for whom I ask all to pray) lived in California and found these unwanted feelings deepening, he would have no recourse to professionals that could help him understand, deal with, or even overcome them.  I suspect that if his family wanted to professionally treat his thoughts of a religious vocation, on the other hand, they would get no pushback from the state.

          This post is not about homosexuality or same-sex attraction; it is about freedom, parental rights, and the needs of our children.  Catholics with children, like me, who live in California, find ourselves in a very dangerous situation.  We do not have the right to get our children the help they may desperately want and need for one of adolescence’s most challenging phases.

          I am praying that the courts restore reason and justice on this issue, but if they don’t, I intend to raise my sons somewhere else.  It is a choice more and more parents must prayerfully consider.

Don't Fund It!

Don’t Fund It!

 

As Catholics, we want to see everyone have access to quality health care.  And most of us saw the need for reasonable, effective, moral health care reform.  Obamacare isn’t it.

Many people agree with medical doctors, who believe Obamacare will destroy the quality of health care in America.   We agree with business and labor leaders, who believe it will cost many jobs.  We agree with Constitutional scholars who recognize the individual mandate as unconstitutional.  And we agree with people of faith, that decry the HHS mandate as grossly immoral.

None of us wants to see the government slimdown go on forever, but many of us also feel the need to encourage Republicans to hold the line on Obamacare.  Aside from contacting your Congressman, you can sign the online petition encouraging Republicans to force the Democrats to adopt an attitude of reasonable cooperation at http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/.

The Government Shutdown

The Government Shutdown

 

By now, everyone knows that the Democrats have shut down the government.  The radical wing of the party is holding the country hostage and is engaging in activity that is tantamount to murder.

Those statements represent some of the nonsense we’ve been treated to the last few days regarding Republicans, so I figured I’d try to balance things out a bit, especially since the shutdown can be said to be primarily the Democrats’ fault.

What do I mean?  Both parties were willing to see the government shut down because they were unable to reach an agreement on a spending bill.  The conflict surrounds Obamacare.  Democrats are unwilling to compromise on the implementation of the law, and Republicans are trying to at least scale it back.  Therefore, to blame one party for the shutdown is completely dishonest.  The Republicans passed bills that funded the government, but the Democratic Senate rejected them over Obamacare.  Given the unpopularity of Obamacare and the fact that polls universally show the American people don’t want it, if we have to place the majority of the blame somewhere, I would think it would go to the party that is unwilling to compromise for the will of the American people, namely the Democrats.

Of course, commentators will say that Republicans knew the Democrats wouldn’t give, so their stand is futile, and therefore they are at fault.  Could, perhaps, the opposite be true?

But Obamacare is already law; isn’t it wrong to allow a shutdown over a bill already passed?  Being a law does not make something right.  Republicans are using the power they have left under our system to avert the implementation of what I would characterize as a disaster.  I commend them on that.

Of course, a government shutdown is no joke and nothing we should desire, primarily because of the financial strain it puts on government workers, who may not be able to afford many furlough days.  (Of course, how many jobs will Obamacare cost?)  Those people are in my prayers, and it is for their sake that I hope this shutdown doesn’t last long.

But I am glad to see some backbone out of Republicans on this important issue, and I pray we may still see the day when Obamacare is just a bad memory.

Should Republicans Try to Defund Obamacare?

Should Republicans Try to

Defund Obamacare?

There are a couple of things we can probably all agree on:  1) Obamacare is a bad law; 2) There are probably not many more chances to prevent its implementation.  Republicans are deciding now whether to try and defeat the law by blocking its funding.

Politically, it’s risky.  It may not be successful.  The Democratic narrative, dutifully promoted by the liberal media, will be that the health care bill provides services to poor people who would otherwise be uninsured.  (Indeed, Republicans must not give up on health care reform just because this bill is a mess.)  There will be a brilliant campaign against Republicans for trying to squash Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

So is it wise to engage in such a fight when Republicans hope to hold on to the House and possibly regain the Senate in the 2014 mid-term elections?

The answer, I think, is a resounding YES!  If there’s one thing our government does well, it is play politics.  And unfortunately Republicans have been cowed into submission on important issues before in the hopes of retaining power or not giving the Democrats and the media too much ammunition.

When this happens, we all lose.  What’s the point of gaining power if you have to compromise your values to keep it?  When a law comes around that is as bad as Obamacare, it is the duty of those who oppose it to do so vigorously, regardless of political consequences.

Senator Marco Rubio recently said in an interview that this may be the last chance to spare the country the negative effects of this bill.  If this isn’t worth fighting for, the senator asked, what is?

He’s right.  If this battle is not one that Republicans think it is prudent to fight, then they have become totally impotent in government.  There may be a time for political strategy, but there also comes a time to stand up and be counted, consequences be damned.