We Haven't Seen No Taxes Yet

With the Tax Day Tea Parties going on, I wonder if any of the protesting posters asked if the Obama Cabinet payed their 2008 taxes.

(Warning: I'm admittedly ranting more than usually below.)

They owe Chiinna money too!

If I went, this might have been my sign:

Stimulus Debt to Chiinna: [sp]
Sovereignty On Sale &
Human Rights to be Shelved
wze3.blogspot.com to be censored

With this overwhelming debt, we have yet to feel the full fury of high taxes (such as Canada etc.) and hyperinflation (from printing money we are borrowing from Chiinna). It's coming.

I'm all about helping the poor, but we've been helping too many really rich folks.

I wonder what Secretary Clinton thinks about the protesting. (She's probably giving it as much attention as Chiinna's giving to her words on human rights expectations.)

A Letter from a Dublin Jail

In April 1963, Dr. King wrote his "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail" that addressed his "Fellow Clergymen" regarding "Negro" civil rights.

On March 26th, 2009, another black Pastor Walter Hoye wrote his letter from a Dublin, CA jail that addressed his fellow "men of the cloth" regarding "womb lynching", or abortion.

I just came back from vacation in New Orleans, LA where a teen-aged Afr. Am. girl's shirt read "We are taking over." Does she not realize that her race in America is dying out and that her President is helping the cause? However, unlike what many people may think, it is not from gun violence. It is due to "pre-natal" murder.

From the Pastor Hoye:

Brothers, in Black America alone every seventy-two (72) seconds a black baby is murdered in the womb of his or her mother. This holocaust is genocidal to the point that today a black child has less than a fifty-percent (50%) chance of being born. According to the 2006 U.S. Census, Black Americans are below the replacement level. In other words, death in Black America outpaces life. Abortion alone accounts for three (3) times more deaths in our community than
HIV/AIDS, Violent Crimes, Accidents, Cancer, and Heart Disease combined. There is no question pre-natal murder, abortion, is the number one issue in not only Black America, but in all of America today. (emphasis added)

It took a little over a year from Dr. King's letter above to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I pray that it will be a short year until a Civil Rights Act of 2010 is signed into law by [President] Obama that will be a beginning to an end of discrimination against the pre-born (especially the genetically black pre-born).
---------

From Dr. King's “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
...
There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Open to Judgment

I've been thinking about a blog post that a family member wrote. It's below.

You probably think you know the answers to these, but I'm a better judge of that than you, and you can't convince me otherwise

Two things people would answer "Yes" to, when they should say "No":

1 - Are you a good judge of people?

I used to think I was a good judge of people until a close friend and idol of mine went to jail for conspiracy to commit triple murders and then another friend was discovered, by me, to have stolen a half million dollars from the company we worked for at the time.

2 - Are you open-minded?

I think people are open-minded about things they don't yet have an opinion on, but not so much on things they've already made up their mind about. When is the last time YOU had your mind changed by someone?

I tried to think about the last time that I changed my mind about something important other than at work. (I change my mind all the time at work; it's part of the job.)

Anyway, I thought of the big things (non-exhaustive): religion, life, death, love, family, and politics.

I grew up in a liberal Pennsylvania mixed marriage home. I always wondered about other religions since my Dad never received (Catholic) communion at Church.

In the many “talks”, my parents (Mom) told me not to have sex until marriage and that I should use protection if necessary.

The intellectual things that I remembered as a child mainly came from high school. I never had a girlfriend. Actually, I usually sat in the back and watched the other high schoolers make fools of themselves over romantic matters (or other dumb stuff).

For a long time, I remembered just soaking up people’s words (I didn’t/don’t talk much). I thought high school was mostly a farce. (My family thought I was gay. Why does not having a girlfriend equal gay?)

In high school, I rooted for Gov. Dukakis because I thought VP HW Bush, Sr. didn’t care enough about poor people.

As a freshman in college, I joined a non-denominational Christian fellowship (and eventually an a cappella Christian group) because I wanted to understand what they believed. (My first girlfriend was a Southern Baptist from the former group.)

As a junior or senior, I participated in a homosexual bible study series (sponsored by the Rainbow Alliance) to understand what they believed.

When I studied abroad in Mexico, I went a couple of times (actually most Sundays) to a Mormon ecclesial community (church).

I strike up conversations on line (and in person) to try to understand people with different views.

I don’t know when I changed my mind last (except on this blog).

I think I’m open to thoughts, but please, oh please, make a convincing argument and provide some resources (which I will actually read in full, assuming its not over 200 pages).

What is a liberal? One who listens to all and tries to whole-heartedly acquiesce to the Truth. (It’s not the same as giving into the “dictatorship of relativism” since there is a Truth insofar as we truly exist.)


As far as judging people, you have to hold the seat of a judge. In other words, you must have all the relevant facts (evidence), hidden and unhidden, in order to make a proper and just judgment. What’s the criteria, unreasonable doubt?

In practice, I keep this thought in mind, "We reap (and gather in) what we sow."

Notice however, that I didn't say that admonishing is to be avoided. We have a duty to speak the truth to guide against evil.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection. And let the peace of Christ control your hearts, the peace into which you were also called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:12-16

Obama Perjured Himself

"[The rescinding of conscience rules for health care workers] is a declaration of war on all who oppose the killing of the unborn." -lifesitenews.com

The main reason that I was against Obama for president was that I believed that he would not uphold the Constitution of the United States. This proposed rule change proves to me, more than any other action (even if it's just proposed), that he perjured himself when he took the oath of office (twice).

(Is Obama really an American citizen? I wasn't even sure about McCain.)
(By the way, I would vote for and have voted for this African American for President. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has been the best presidential candidate for a long time.)

How did Obama perjure himself? He's now blatantly and obviously dismissing the Constitution of the United States (First Amendment; see the USCCB's own superb analysis: they do not say that Obama perjured himself, I do.).

Doctors and Nurses still take the Hippocratic oath (some recite, "I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion."). Some have the audacity to believe that they are to do no harm to anyone in anyway (including referral), even to the individual preborn.

How can the (supposed) President of the United States force a doctor or nurse to go against their conscience or oath? It's like forcing a President of the United States to divulge secrets to enemies foreign and domestic (yes, I know it's in the VP oath).

May this country remember that powers are from the American people and not from a few.

May God bless this sinful America. (By the way, that includes all Americans.)



UPDATE (4/1/2009 12:09P):
I just sent the following email from here. (The middle part [] is a form letter.)
---

[Header will be placed here]
Dear [System will insert the recipient's name here]:

I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

I have many friends and family members who believe in the Hippocratic oath: they are to do no harm to their patients, including their preborn and handicap patients.[Please retain the conscience regulation, and enforce current laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The right of conscience protected by existing federal laws is inviolable. Weakening protection for this right will harm the ethical integrity of our healing professions, drive caring people out of these professions, and reduce patients' access to much-needed basic health care.]Help my friends and family keep their Constitutionally prescribed and Congressional mandated conscious protections that enable them to care for their patients. If the Church clause and others rules are rescinded, they may be unduly persecuted for doing what is right for all their patients.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
[The system will insert address here.]

A Changed Request

I changed my mind about the last post. No, this is not an April's Fool joke. After reading about and listening to Professor Glendon (below), I think it a better idea if she accepts the award from Notre Dame. She deserves any award she is given by anyone or institution with any morals (even Notre Dame at this juncture). See some of her talks on Youtube below.


Also, the letter I sent bounced back. Evidently, the email address I used is no longer active.

I am going to send the following letter to her Harvard email (glendon aatt law dott harvard dott edu).
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo (see Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail) and address the President’s policies and his interpretation of the law (that is contrary to Catholic teaching) that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know his policies intimately.) This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding an honorary law doctorate to President Obama for his current policies and his former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD
---

May God have mercy on us all.

Open Letter to Professor Glendon

I wrote the following letter to Professor Glendon today at glendon aatt glendonbooks dooot com. She is to receive the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame this year along with President Obama. President Obama is to receive an honorary law doctorate. The University of Notre Dame is (was) one of the premier American Catholic Universities.
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo and address the President’s policies that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know the policies them intimately.)

Further, if I may be so bold, may I suggest that you decline the acceptance of your award? This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding President Obama for his current policies and former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[Gutterball Master]
Baltimore, MD

"Hands" of God Thought

The question was asked in Faith Sharing this week at Church: How do you reconcile your image of God of the Old-Testament with the image of God of the New-Testament?

I immediately thought, "There is no difference; It's the same God."

After some others talked about their ideas, I came up with one I never thought of before.

I talked about how the universe is expanding due to the change of entropy. (I asked, "Into what is the universe expanding?" Someone said the universe was infinite; I don't know about that.)

Anyway, I imagined God as holding the universe in His personified hands while it expands. God is able to care for the universe like the song says, "He's got the whole world (universe) in His hands." At the same time (out of time but in time since God "is". Note to Dawkiners: No, God is not created, He just is), He is able to guide, punish, or even crush part of the universe with His fingers. This is one way how I "reconcile" the two views.

What do you think? (Really)

Powerful Ignorance Buys Power

I've been reading the thoughts of three currently powerful politicians about when they think human life begins.

From Secretary of State Clinton:
"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception," said Mrs Clinton.
"But for me, it is not only about the potential life, but the other lives involved."

From President Obama:
Mr Obama said he did not know whether life begins with conception.
"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on... I don't presume to know the answer to that question," he said.
"What I know... is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

From former President Clinton:
In a recent interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, former President Bill Clinton repeatedly referred to human embryos as “unfertilized,” adding that, if they were fertilized, they would “become human beings.” (emphasis added)

Why are they so ignorant?

Remember Dr. Evil's pinky finger:
Perhaps for evil power?
(Duh note: in America, power=money)

(May I suggest that they read up on real science (as opposed to political science that is changed by money) at the (usually Atheist) Libertarians for Life science page.)

As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Some Marriage Advice

I've been married over just seven years, but I think I have some marriage advice from observing my marriage and others.

If you think the option of divorce is open when you marry, you will eventually divorce. If you do not think the divorce option is open, you will try your hardest to keep from divorcing.

Some might say religion helps since it teaches that divorce is immoral. I would say Christianity helps since you strive to lay down your life for the other as Christ and the Church laid and lays down their lives for each other.

---------

In the same vain as above, I also have some advice about sexual morality as it comes to abortion. When you engage in sexual relations with another, if you think abortion is an option, it will happen.

Before you engage in sexual relations, know that the outcome might be a baby, even if birth control is used. If you don't want a baby, don't engage in sexual relations with another. Period.


Just a thought.

St. Patrick in the USA

Happy Saint Patrick's Day to everyone!
---------

Our new Pres. says there's cause for alarm
The scientists are all up in arms.
With a percentage of three
Of the Irish is he.
May his blarney be only a charm!

Cut all the money (public and private) for the unethical, immoral, and nonsensical (there are moral etc. alternatives) embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

(They're people!)
(I know the Soylent Green analogy doesn't exactly work, but I love how he does this: it's over the top, but the facts about ESC and abortion (etc.) are also just so over the top.)

Oh! that we could have Saint Patrick drive out the snakes of this country.

Personhood in Maryland

Here's the person who introduced the Maryland Personhood Amendment.

Please pray for my state, and if you are a citizen of Maryland, please call or write or come out this Friday to speak to the Delegate Council.

Information on how to do your part is here (from my blog) and here (the main mdpersonhood website).

It's All About Priorities

A couple of weeks ago, I talked to someone at Church about Amnesty International (AI). He said that he supported them in their fight for justice around the world.

During our conversation, I remembered that AI was now a pro-abortion lobby group according to lifesitenews.com (1 2 3).

So, this last Sunday, I gave a printout of the above articles (and a couple more) to him. He said that he didn't believe it (as in, "I don't believe these papers"). I said that I knew he wrote letters for AI, but I assumed he did not contribute money to them. I was wrong, he did support them monetarily. I responded, "By giving money to them, they can use your money for their pro-abortion lobby."

As you can imagine, he tried to explain his reasons for contributing to them. When you get down to it, his main point was that he does not use a "litmus test" for determining to which charities he contributes: he looks at the organization as a whole. His bottom line: if AI supports abortion, they do so many other good things that they deserve his (monetary) support.

When he was done expressing his views, I said that I look at the numbers: it comes down to priority. The total abortions carried out worldwide in one year (42 million; 210 million in five years) was more than the total number of people that were exterminated by A. Hitler in all his German concentration camps (about 21 million in 5 years; there are about 2 times more abortions in one year worldwide that were killed in WWII concentration camps over five years).

What I didn't tell him was that if an organization pushes abortion, that entity would be disqualified by me. The same goes for political candidates.

Until we (those OTAAAC) start putting our priorities in stopping abortion (monetarily and politically) instead of the economy, war, poverty, etc., we won't see this most brutal institution come crashing down.

I'm not saying that the other causes are not important, I'm suggesting that if an organization is for abortion, they should not get monetary or political support by those OTAAAC.

Period.

Hearing for Maryland Personhood Amendment

This Friday, 13 March 2009, there will be a hearing regarding the Maryland Personhood Amendment, House Bill 925 at 1 p.m. If you cannot make it to the hearing, may I suggest that you call your representative and a delegate closest to your district on the "HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE" to voice your support for the amendment (to be a ballot initiative).

If you do not know who your Maryland Delegates are, see this website.

(One of my Delegates co-sponsored this bill. (Thank you God!) Another of my Delegates (she was a nurse; perhaps "Do no harm?") is on the HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE).

Label for Life

We've all heard of racism, sexism, ageism, speciesism (speciesism is illogical), etc.

I've been trying to come up for a label for those who discriminate based on a person's stage of development (those still not born after conception). The best I came up with until today was developmentism. It just doesn't work.

Then, today, it came to me: stageism (not stagism; hard "g").

What do you think? Do you have any better ideas? (I think it should be one word, preferably three syllables.)

Church Attack in Connecticut

In Connecticut, they want to take over the Roman Catholic Church.

See the bill. From the actual bill:

Statement of Purpose:

To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations. (emphasis added)

See the (video, etc.) response of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport.

The reasons for introducing the bill are obvious: kill a major entity against same-sex "marriage" and abortion. Also, it makes people consider the very un-Catholic idea that the Church is a democracy. The Church is not a democracy (unlike the Episcopal Church, Quakers, etc.): the (Arch)Bishop, accountable to Rome, is ultimately in charge. (The pope is ultimately answerable to the Holy Trinity.)

Pray for this country that has forgotten its Constitution (in so many ways) and ideas of the Founding Founders.

An Exclamatory Opinion

Last October or November (2008), someone in the choir that I’m in came over to ask about my baby. I said that he was doing well and was starting to stand up on furniture. After a little reminiscing about her children, she said that her daughter was having difficulty having children and was going about trying to get in vitro fertilization (IVF).

I don’t know how it happened, but the Holy Spirit must have prompted me to immediately, I mean immediately say, “That’s unethical!” She is not typically a very emotional person, but she got quite a jolt by that exclamatory opinion. I was quite surprised too.

She said something like, “Oh?!” I then went into my little explanation.

I didn’t initially say that zygotes and embryos were human persons. Instead, I asked if she knew anything about IVF. She said nothing but the obvious. I said that they make extra embryos than needed, place more than one into the mother (usually three, I thought), and keep the others frozen. I said that’s why there were so many multiple births going on recently (this was way before the octoplet affair this year). My conclusion was that since they will probably destroy the “extra” embryos, it was unethical since human persons are destroyed (I didn’t know at the time that there usually is also selective reduction (killing of one or more of the embryos) done in the mother after implantation). (I did also say that human life created outside marriage was unethical since it created many problems, but very few agree with that.)

I suggested that her daughter adopt (what does my adopting have to do with killing children?). She then said, “Do you plan to adopt?” I said yes. She asked if my wife was agreeable. I said that she was the one who really wanted to (I also do, but women are more motherly).

At the end, she asked me if I was Catholic (Yes!). She then said I was entitled to my opinion, and we haven’t talked about it since (She left the choir after last semester).

I didn’t think of it before, but today’s executive order to lift the ban on federal dollars (my tax dollars!) for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) reinforces the truth that IVF is unethical. From First Things blog:

So is Obama’s decision good not only for science. [sic] It’s also good for ethics. Why? Because this country produces and destroys countless human embryos every day in the name of fertility medicine [with IVF].
…
Of course, Dr. Caplan isn’t calling for a coherent ethical approach to science—for how can a denial of the intrinsic value of human embryos be coherent?—he’s calling for consistency. Unfortunately, he’s right. Denouncing the production of human embryos for science while silently looking over the problems of the fertility industry [IVF] creates a hypocritical double standard.

So, IVF is unethical for the same reason ESCR is. Namely, both destroy human persons in their most innocent and venerable stage of development (developmental discrimination; shouldn’t our first (half) African American president realize this?). Further, both have viable and ethical alternatives, for IVF, it is adoption, for ESCR, it is Adult SCR. Neither adoption nor Adult SCR destroys human persons.

Bottom line, it’s not about politics versus science, it’s about ethics versus militant relativism (Pope Benedict XVI).

To Be Silent No More

WARNING: Some of the material below is graphic and gruesome.

This week, I received my issue of Life Report from Maryland Right to Life, Inc. In it there was an article entitled, "A Woman Remembers: The Choice" by Mrs. Kelly Stauffer.

At 13, Ms. Staufer was pregnant. She went to get an abortion and was "hooked up to [an IV] that [was] meant to put [her] in a 'twilight' state of consciousness." However, the drugs did not work and she remembered it all.

On the fourth day, as I lay on an examination table, my baby began to kick frantically ... more than she ever had before. I didn't realize what was about to happen but somehow she must have known. The doctor entered with a large needle that he shot into my abdomen. After that I never felt my baby move again ...
...
When it was my turn I was surprised to enter a small room with what seemed to be a toilet. I was told to sit on the toilet, lean on the nurse, and push. So I did. I pushed my dead baby into a toilet.

The years that followed were dark. I was depressed ofter suicidal. I felt so guilty and helpless. I tried to numb my pain anyway I could.

Finally I found help through a Rachel's Vineyard retreat. I got involved in the group Silent No More and began sharing my testimony anywhere I could in an effort to break the silence and expose the lie that abortion is good for women.

During reading this testimonial, it reminded me of the analysis I did of the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban. I will never forget one quote from an abortion nurse about the intact D&E procedure (WARNING: this is very graphic).

'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . ."'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. "'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . "'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.'

Do those who are PAAAC read and see what selective abortion really is? (Spontaneous abortion is hard enough, believe me.)

I would encourage those who need more case evidence that women and children deserve better than abortion to go to the Silent No More testimonials page. I especially found these testimonies from abortion survivors informative.

If you (woman or man) have been hurt by abortion, I encourage you to submit your testimonial to the Silent No More Campaign here.

Radically Real Racial Reconciliation

Over at the Blog of Bill Moyers Journal (liberal), they asked the following questions:

Can Americans Speak Frankly about Race?
What do you think?
In America, can people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds speak their minds about race with equal frankness? Why or why not?
Do members of some racial groups have more insight into racial matters than members of other groups, as McWhorter interprets Holder to mean? Explain.
What do you think can be done to help improve racial relations and discourse in America?

I answered the last question. As of this posting, they haven't yet approved my answer (I posted it at about noon today). In any event, it's below.
---------

One thing that can be done to help improve racial relations in the United States is to stop exterminating racial minorities through womb-lynching by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

If America realizes that the lynching of African Americans never stopped but actually skyrocketed in number, we can come even closer to racial reconciliation (the percentage of blacks aborted is substantially higher than the percentage in the population of America at large).

We must confront the beliefs of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. In 1929, she wrote the following.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (emphasis added)

There is already radically real racial reconciliation happening in the pro-life movement. Black, Whites, Asians, and all races have come together, like the original abolitionists, to proclaim that like African Americans, preborn humans are also persons made in the image and likeness of God that have a right to life from conception.

Visiting My Senior U.S. Senator's Office

I've been wanting to write about this for a while.

On 24 October 2008, I had a chance to talk to a staff member of Senior U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland at the Hart Building in Washington, D.C (I am not a lobbyist and do not represent any entity other than myself as a Marylander and as an American). You can see the PowerPoint presentation that I presented to the staffer (in printed slides) below.


The PowerPoint was in reference to (1) specific Bills of the 110th Congress (as shown in slides) and (2) references that were used for additional facts. (The actual texts of (1) and (2) are here. The references are all copyrighted and belong to the copywriter as referenced on the article. Most of them have referencing URL's (under Fair Use).)

Regarding the actual meeting, I talked too much about the bills that I had on the slides before the Freedom of (Abortion) Choice Act (FOCA). I only had a few minutes to talk about FOCA and related information (Note to those visiting Staffers personally: ask how many minutes you have and time yourself).

I am a real BIG proponent of term limits for all government officials (especially federal ones). Otherwise, the elected officials get too powerful due to the insider trading with the big interest groups (especially big abortionists/porn traders/EMILY's List and Big Defense Contractors (Lockheed and Northrup etc.)).

Regarding the Enumerated Powers Act, as a citizen I would like to know why Congress thinks it has the power to do what it does. I would like to call them out on a bill if its unconstitutional.

The first of the two main points I had about FOCA was that Roe v. Wade ("Roe") had been superseded in substantial part by Pl. Par. v. Casey (505 U.S. 833, 1992) (“Casey”). The main point I had was that having an abortion was no longer a "fundamental right" as Roe had stated (and was reiterated in FOCA), but instead was an action that was reviewed under the "undue burden" standard (not for "fundamental right"). Therefore, FOCA was unconstitutional since the Supreme Court, that interprets the US Constitution, ruled that abortion was not a "fundamental right" (as FOCA would have legislated).

The second point I had was that the initial premise by the Warren Court that abortion laws were a recent development in law was indeed false. Therefore, if Roe was reviewed under new evidence by a lawsuit of FOCA, Roe may be overturned under stare decisis (as I understand it, I am not a lawyer). This new evidence was of a primary source book on the history of abortion law, namely, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (“Myths”) by Joseph Dellapenna.

The zinging conclusion the book makes is the following.

“It is time that the Court took seriously its own premise that the constitutional status of a claimed right to abort is to be tested against history and traditions of this nation. The accumulated wisdom relating to abortion teaches us that the prohibition of abortion was always viewed as the protection of emerging, yet real, human life — a concern only made more certain by the continual growth of medical knowledge of gestation during the last two centuries.” (p. 1084)

The other slides are pretty much self explanatory.

May I suggest joining the personhood movement. There have already been two victories (1 and 2).

Silence Debate at College

When pro-lifers and pro-abortionist come together on the street, we've all heard or heard about the "Keep your rosaries of my ovaries!" being shouted.

The most recent protest like this that I saw on the web was of the "'Empty Manger' Christmas Caroling Day" (see image to the left). People like her shouted in the faces of the peaceful carolers.

You'd expect this coming from a street protest (or even this: "Abortion Supporters Pelt Pro-Lifers with Stones in France").

What's not expected is that this is happening on college campuses. See the video and picture examples below. If anywhere, the ideas of people against "womb-lynching" (or any other topic) should be heard and seen on college campuses.

(1) Pro-Life Speaker Shouted Down by Mob Last Week Speaks at Another Catholic University Tonight


(2) CAUGHT ON VIDEO: Wisconsin U Student Senator Vandalizing Pro-Life Display of Crosses: A UWSP student has a conflict with a University approved demonstration.
(Youtube embed is not available)

(3) Lesbian Break-in and Riot During College Speech on "Born-Gay Hoax" Forces Cancellation (picture to the left):
Example of homosexual movement forcing "their social and sexual agenda on others," say observers

(4) Calgary Pro-Life Club Stripped of Club Status after Pro-Life Students Charged with "Trespassing"

When the Truth (and God who is Truth; John 18:37) is on your side, those opposed to the truth either need to drown out the message of the truth sayers or keep perfectly quiet.

'Such frustration is fueled by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, whose leaders discourage their campus affiliates from debating or even talking to pro-life students. NARAL’s ‘Campus Kit for Pro-Choice Organizers,’ for example, gives this categorical instruction: ‘Don’t waste time talking to anti-choice people.’”'

...

'As a movement that wants to preserve the status quo, it simply has nothing to gain from engaging its opponents, especially on college campuses where the pro-choice view is a default progressive position for many students. But the pro-choice movement does have something to lose if bested in public debate. Moreover, pro-choice advocates know very well that even the minds of activists in their ranks can be changed. Prominent examples include abortion providers and the cofounder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, not to mention many less prominent rank-and-file activists.'

-Richard John Neuhaus quoting The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, by Jon Shields, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in The Pro-Life Movement as the Politics of the 1960s

(OTAAAC college article)

(All images from lifesitenews.com)

Forgive an Atheist Today

Today's reading for the last Sunday before Lent is the following (from USCCB):

When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days,
it became known that he was at home.
Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them,
not even around the door,
and he preached the word to them.
They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd,
they opened up the roof above him.
After they had broken through,
they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic,
"Child, your sins are forgiven."
Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,
"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming.
Who but God alone can forgive sins?"
Jesus immediately knew in his mind
what they were thinking to themselves,
so he said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic,
'Your sins are forgiven,'
or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk?'
But that you may know
that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"
—he said to the paralytic,
"I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."
He rose, picked up his mat at once,
and went away in the sight of everyone.
They were all astounded
and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

In faith sharing between masses at my Church in Baltimore, we discussed forgiveness.

The topic of the Amish in PA and the forgiveness of the child murderer came up. I then talked about the Atheist debates I heard with Christopher Hitchens. In every debate, Hitchens asks this question, "Name something that a believer does that an Atheist does not do." (Not the exact wording) He says no one ever answers this question. I would like to answer.

Unlike most, Christians have the capacity to forgive seemingly unforgivable crimes. The Amish forgave a man who slaughtered many of their children. How is this possible if not for the faith that we have in Jesus: Jesus calls us to forgive those who sin against us and God as he forgave, forgives, and will forgive us.

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic,
'Your sins are forgiven,'
or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk?'

-------------------

Someone in the faith sharing group said that someone asked them, "Prove to me that God exists."

This reminded me of The God Delusion of Richard Dawkins that I read about a year earlier. He thought that God did not show enough evidence of his existence. Furthermore, he thought it very improbable that he existed due to the similarity between God and the Ultimate Boeing 747: God is much too complex to exist. (I will get to this quandary and others in future posts when I continue to go through the book.)

I told the person in faith sharing that the burden of proof for the existence of (any) God was on the Atheist because the Atheist was asking the question about God's existence. Further, the inquirer was awaiting a reply. The fact (evidence) that two people are conversing shows that something had to create everything in order to make the conversation possible. It is the Atheist's burden to prove that something that is commonly called God (that was not created and that created all of the universe) did not create the possibility for the conversation.

There is no leap of faith required to believe in God. The only leap of faith that is required is for a belief in a particular revelation, or tradition of this God's particular attributes (besides creating the created universe).

The ultimate reason, I see, for people to avoid believing in God is to enable them to do whatever they want under their own power; they want to be released from any responsibility since they're just doing what they were materially evolved to do (without God there is no morality).

Ultimately, Atheists will call good actions bad and bad actions good. Does Christopher Hitchens think that forgiving the child murderer is good? Doesn't he think it better to have the Amish get revenge: eye for an eye, and so forth?

Imagine a world, not where there is no religion (or no sin), but where people forgive as Jesus forgave us in our sin.

For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5: 6-8

Help the Cause for Life Today

Here are some actions that you can currently do in and for the pro-life (OTAAAC) movement:

Donate time, money, diapers, clothes, and professional help to your local Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC).
http://www.lifecall.org/shelters_cpc.html
(My local one had a mass and benefit last night.)

Red Envelope Project Tells President Obama of Outrage over Abortion Promotion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021104.html
http://www.redenvelopeproject.org/

Democrats for Life America: "YOUTUBE CHANNEL IS READY FOR YOUR VIDEO TESTIMONIAL"
http://www.youtube.com/group/wesupportPWSA

Seven States Have Launched Efforts for Personhood Rights for Pre-born - More Expected:
Call, write, visit, or email your state representative.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021803.html

Join the Personhood Movement
http://www.personhoodusa.com/

Nationwide Petition Launched To Withhold Communion from Pelosi, Biden and Other Prominent Dissenting Catholics
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021902.html
http://www.pewsitter.com/petition/

40 Days of Life during Lent
http://www.40daysforlife.com

Most importantly pray for God's will to be done in your city, country, and the world.

God Helps Those!

I finally had my chance to find out what people meant by, “Don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” On a liberal “Christian” blog, someone commented, “Those that do not accept contraception or abortion, should not use contraceptives or have abortions.”

The final impression I got from the commenter was:

(1) Way back when slavery was legal in the US (also Jim Crow), I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor black folk sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the Abolitionists in their struggle for racial equality of blacks because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

(2) Way back when ethnic cleansing of Jews was legal in Germany, I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor Jews sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the German Jews, Catholics, Christians, Gypsies, and people of good will in their struggle for ethnic equality of Jews (and Catholics, Gypsies, etc) because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

(3) Since abortion is now legal in the US, I sit back in my chair and think, "Those poor unborn children sure have it rough." Consequently, I don't think it necessary to join Atheists, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Libertarians (and Democrats), and people of good will in their struggle for developmental equality of the pre-born because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

During the end of this exchange I was remembering that (American?) cultural Christian parable where the person in a flood was being rescued by a helicopter and then by a boat. When the person got to heaven, they asked why they weren’t helped. God said that He sent the helicopter and the boat.

But instead of thinking of the person that went to heaven, I was thinking about the people driving the helicopter and the boat. If the drivers never came, God couldn’t say that he sent them.

I was very sad that the person commenting above didn't seem to want to do the right thing because he felt that God was abandoning certain people to the evil aspects of the world.

But then I got to thinking, does God help those who only help themselves? Many preachers say that this is false: God helps those who can’t help themselves. I’ve come to believe it’s another false dichotomy. Why can’t God help those who help themselves and those who can’t help themselves? Doesn’t God just help in many good ways seen and unseen?

Who does God help? God helps those! (Yes, it’s “them”, but it just doesn’t work in the same dramatic way.)

God helps those who can help themselves because he bestows many talents on people. God helps those who can’t help themselves by granting unexplainable courage along with natural (rain in a drought) and manmade aids (boat and helicopter and speaking out on behalf of the helpless). In the end, God helps in all good things even though we might not understand how or why.

So, regarding the commenter above, he’s not going in a helicopter or boat, he’s staying at home to type away at his computer to write about how pitiful some people are (including the unborn).

May we all remember those who can’t help themselves and answer God’s call in our own individual way to do God’s will for the benefit of others. May we also thank God for the talents he gave us and that we use them for His glory.

Liberal or Conservative

I use the terms liberal and conservative all the time. I've recently been wondering what that exactly means.

In general (according to me), conservative is the description of a viewpoint that was originally conceived at the onset of a group. Liberal is the description of a viewpoint that has changed since the onset of a group.

(In general, I usually talk as if I'm part of the "United States Citizens" group unless otherwise stated.)

Example 1: Group: United States Citizens. Original concept: role of federal government. Conservative: limited federal government. Liberal: more power to the federal government.

Example 2a: Group: Christian. Original concept: Abortion. Conservative: Abortion is always a sin. Liberal: Abortion is not a sin.

Example 2b: Group: Ancient Romans (~10 AD). Original concept: Abortion. Conservative: Abortion is morally permissible. Liberal: Abortion is never morally permissible.

Example 3: Group: Ancient Romans (~10 AD). Original concept: infanticide is morally permissible. Liberal: infanticide is never morally permissible.

President Obama's Economy Stimulant

Yes, I'm being flip.

I'm all gitty about the almost imminent passage of the (790Billion$US+) economic stimulus package. Yes, it came down in price (from about 838Billion$US), but to what end?

President Obama ran on "Change" rhetoric. President Obama is pushing for an "Economic Stimulus Bill". What do they have in common? The biggest Beg to Question headache of the century.

We'll see if they're the biggest downer in US history.

(I actually pray that they won't be since none of my US congresspeople would vote against either; they're the biggest baddest liberal group of any state.)

Catholics Are Against Slavery

I was thinking about the fact that Jews were legally permitted to own slaves but that the Catholic Church since at least the seventh century taught that slavery was to be abolished.

The Jews were allowed to own non-Jewish slaves. (How can this be after they were enslaved by the Egyptians? It's probably a "hardness of hearts" law like those of divorce.) (Catholic) Christians are not to own slaves of any race or creed.

This got me to wondering: Is it true that Christians cannot own slaves because all of humanity is now grouped together as one family in Love (God is Love)? One nation is not chosen above another?

What do you think?

Sidebar:
I've been arguing with a liberal person at "Contextual Criticism" (liberal Christian) blog here. The issue of slavery and the Old Testament vis-a-vis Abortion (in connection with the Mexico City Policy/Obama) and Afro. Amer. enslavement came up. (Any comments on our exchange in the comments there?)

Porn Attorneys for Obama

I received the following email from The Maryland Coalition Against Pornography (a comment follows the email below):

Friends,

We have reason to be alarmed at the federal nomination described below.
To voice your concerns to the Senate Judiciary Committee, call them at:
Senate Judiciary Committee Majority & Minority Offices: 202-224-7703 & 202-224-5225

Marylanders, one of our Senators, Ben Cardin, sits on the Judiciary Committee. Call him at his DC office: 202-224-4524 or in Baltimore: 410-962-4436. He can also be emailed using a we-based form [sic]:
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice -
David Ogden's 'Obscene' Record
CHICAGO, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.
"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The U.S. Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. Ogden's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."
"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine -- at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch....
"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."

For a full report on David Ogden's disappointing legal record, visit http://www.fidelis.org [or here].

www.mcap1.com

The Maryland Coalition Against Pornography is a volunteer based organization. Focused on the Nation's Capital Region, we work to protect children, families and communities from the devastating effects of pornography.

My comment:
David Ogden fought a measure that would keep porn from being viewed at public libraries (please correct me if I'm wrong; see here). I know someone who works at a library (not me) who has mixed feelings about this law since they are against censorship. However, this person thinks that children who are in the public library should not have to see pornographic material on someone's computer screen. This is a common sense law that should have passed (as many public indecency laws have). Instead, David Ogden successfully fought this law and succeeded. Now, a librarian is not permitted by the Supreme Court to force a person viewing pornography from ceasing to view it (many of these people supposedly get off from viewing it in public).

I wonder if he has any kids. If he does, may their guardian angels protect them.

Speaker Pelosi is for Soylent Green

Speaker Pelosi says that contraception will help the economy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

(quote at 1:19)

What the liberal media doesn't want you to know is this: she wants to subsidize soylent green with the current stimulus bill.

She proposes that when senior citizens reach 75 years old and enter the hospital for any reason, they will be drafted for soylent green duty.

Behind closed doors, President Obama was asked his opinion. He said, "I don't know when human life ends. It's above my pay grade."

(This is obviously satire.)

The Wisdom of the Cross

Parts of the First Homily of the New Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron:

There are many ways in which this conflict between the true wisdom of the gift of self and the pseudo-wisdom of self-sovereignty are exemplified in our society. I will mention three of those that seem to me among the most lamentable. First, there is the conflict between those who base their decision about a state in life or their selection of a profession on discerning the will of God and those who make these choices on the basis of gaining wealth or security or the world’s esteem. Second, there is the conflict between those who judge it wise always to protect the right to life of others, even at a cost to themselves, and those who would be willing to violate that right, if that is the price to be paid to keep control of the circumstances and conditions in which they have decided to live. Third, there is frequently in our society a conflict between those who make the well-being of their spouses or children the first priority in their lives and those who are convinced that their families exist to bring them self-gratification.
...
And those of you who are parents, please teach this wisdom to your children by what you say, and most of all by the way you live. This wisdom of the cross is the greatest gift you can give those whom you love so dearly.

This speaks to me very personally in a strange way. Recently, I have met newly or just-to-be newly married couples that have been asking a bunch of questions about marriage. Specifically, they're asking about how raising kids is going.

My impression (from the myriad of questions and the pattern of questioning) is that they're asking because they're trying to figure out what the pleasure-pain ratio of having children is (is it easy or hard/is it worth it?). In other words, now that marriage has helped my life satisfaction, will children make it even better? Until I'm sure it will, I'll continue to contracept and keep my sweet dogs and cats with the other human sweetness.

When things don't go exactly as planned, when things get out of control, what will happen?

On the other hand, if they have the wisdom of the cross, perhaps they will totally give themselves to the other (and not artificially contracept). If an unexpected blessing (unplanned pregnancy) happens, perhaps they will welcome the preborn human person with open arms.

What is the wisdom of the cross? It's "the true wisdom of the gift of self."

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. John 15:13

Does any one know what I mean? Perhaps I'm sensing something that's not there? God only knows their hearts.

Save the Sheep From the Wolves!

I’ve been reading Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics. In the essay “The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity” by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, in the footnotes it says,

It is worth noting that nonhuman animals themselves not only regularly engage in killing each other, but many of them (lions and tigers, for example) seem to depend for their whole mode of living (and so their flourishing), on hunting and killing other animals. If nonhuman animals really did have full moral rights, however, we would be morally required to stop them from killing each other. Indeed, we would be morally required to invest considerable resources-economic, military, even-in order to protect zebras and antelopes from lions, sheep and foxes from wolves, and so on.

Of course this military scenario is ridiculous, but why aren’t animal activists (PETA) trying to save Apes from each other’s militant advances in the wild or otherwise? In Spain (lifesitenews.com), the government has already resolved to equate great apes and humans.

If they can call great apes humans, why do they still deem that throwing humans in the trash is perfectly acceptable (moral) and legal (not the same thing)? It makes some people crazy. From lifesitenews.com:

"[Matthew Derosia of Cottage Grove] saw all these little babies that made it and he heard all these horror stories about the babies that made it in the trash can making noise. It made him sick," said Georjean [Derosia, Matthew’s mother]. "He worries about these babies that get aborted and he obsesses on it."

I’m not saying that driving an SUV into a Planned Parenthood like Matthew Derosia did is the answer. We just have to keep up the good fight for the preborn and their mothers like Pastor Luke Robinson is trying to do.

As African American pastor Pastor Luke Robinson from Frederick, Maryland (yes, Maryland; my state that has only one OTAAAC member in the federal Congress) said at this year’s March for Life,

Please Mr. President [Obama], be that agent of change that can commute the sentence of over 1400 African American children and over 3000 children from other ethnic groups sentenced to die every day in this country by abortion.

See blackgenocide.org for more on this genocide of African American children.

Save the Sheep From the Wolves? How about saving innocent preborn babies from the Culture of Death led by President Obama and the DNC (Destroys Unborn Children; lifesitenews.com)!

Mexico City Policy Response

From lifesitenews.com regarding the withdrawal of the Mexico City Policy ("a Reagan-era policy that forbids taxpayer monies from funding organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas"):

“We are distressed that in the midst of the country's greatest economic crisis since the Depression, this Administration is going to allocate millions of taxpayer dollars to abort children in developing countries.

“Reversing the Mexico City Policy is nothing less than a bailout of the abortion industry, taking money away from grassroots organizations that truly help women and children in order to fund two radical abortion lobbyists in particular – International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International.

“By forcing abortion down the throats of indigenous peoples throughout the world, who want real aid, not abortion, we are needlessly antagonizing potential allies, undermining the President's promise of respectful international cooperation of just two days ago.

“We truly hope that this is not the first step toward the new Administration becoming the most pro-abortion Administration in history.”

Arizona Right to Life
Campaign Life Coalition
Caring to Love Ministries, Inc.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Catholic Medical Association
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Divine Mercy Care
Expectant Mother Care
Fair Park Bible Fellowship
Good Counsel Homes
Heartbeat International
Human Life Alliance
International Right to Life Federation
Latin American Alliance for the Family (ALAFA)
LCMS World Relief and Human Care
Life Coalition International
Life Education and Resource Network Inc.
Life Issues International
Life Legal Defense Foundation
Lutherans for Life
Pro-Life Action League
40 Days for Life

I would like to add my name also: Gutterball Master of WZE.

I don't want my tax dollars to go to fund abortion! I want my tax dollars used to help the poor with food, medicine, clothing, shelter, and job training (etc), not to kill them!

President Obama's Inauguration

I’ve been trying to think about what I wanted to write about the inauguration of President Obama. I thought of how ironic it was that he stumbled over the words of the oath of office with Chief Justice Roberts as he was swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America (I voted against him since I thought he wouldn’t live up to this very oath). I was thinking about how parts of his inauguration speech sounded as if he was at the March for Life (which is tomorrow; I’m going; here's President Obama's invitation). The way he talked about leaving behind stale political arguments and standing up for the most vulnerable (“every man, woman, and child”; how about the un-born, about to be born, and even the just born?) seemed misplaced (abortion is older than the recognition of human dignity; it’s a conservative position to be pro-abortion as a choice (PAAAC)).

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Instead, I remembered the people I personally knew who faced the decision to have an abortion or not.

One person I knew got pregnant from her boyfriend and her parents did not want to be shamed by a baby out of marriage. People from the group in which this scared woman was part offered their home for her and her baby now conceived (after calling their parents). We talked about how she could get through the pregnancy. She aborted the baby and was still with the boyfriend the last time I checked.

One person I talked to at my former employer was a father of a girl. He said that if his daughter got raped, he would encourage her to get an abortion. He identified himself as a non-churchgoing Christian. I said plainly, “But you would be murdering your grandson or daughter.” He said, “It wouldn’t be my grandson or daughter!” I offered the SLED test to him and asked if he still thought it was at least a human person. He said no. I offered the fact that an abortion would be yet another violent act upon his daughter. I actually forget what he said about that.

I have asked myself, “What would I do if my daughter was raped and got pregnant?” I still think that I would continue to love both my daughter and her child – my grandson or daughter – and do whatever I could to support them.

May President Obama change his stale political arguments.

President Obama’s Call to Responsibility

I’ve been reading a book that I received from the The President’s Council on Bioethics entitled Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics. One thing that I found from the book was a discussion about the (US) Declaration of Independence that I haven’t thought of before. Namely, the endowment of human rights can be rethought as a call for human duties, or responsibilities. In other words, one can be thought of as not having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but a duty to uphold the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others in society (of individuals around them).

If we took the later approach, more individuals would be supported by others; if the former, only the individual is looking out for numero uno. With the former, social justice as a universal idea would more naturally come to the forefront of our consciousness; with the later, the individual would seek to gain more power to hold onto their rights. If right language were turned into duty and responsibility language, the consequences of our actions would have to be examined more closely.

Consequences come from taking on additional responsibility (ask any manager). There is more for the one with more responsibility to think about. What will I do if I do this? What will someone else have to do if I do that?

------------- ------------- -------------

I just read what President Obama’s inaguration speech (at the time after taking the oath of office) will be about:

A top aide says Barack Obama's inauguration address will call on Americans to embrace a new era of responsible behavior — in government and in business.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for chief of staff, says Obama's speech Tuesday will ask the nation to reject the "culture of anything goes."

Emanuel says Obama will ask Americans to restore a national value system that honors responsibility and accountability. It harkens back to John F. Kennedy's call for personal sacrifice in his 1960 inauguration address.

Yes, he will talk to governmental and business leaders about responsibility, but I’m sure it will also be addressed to the general population.

He may say. “Don’t just do things because you feel like it. You must sacrifice for the good of the country and do your duty! Face the consequences of your actions.”

Yes, I will go there: President Obama must do some self-reflection. He said,

“Look, I got two daughters – 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Will President Obama teach his daughters that they must face the consequences of their actions? Will he teach them to despise the life they created? Will he teach them that babies are cruel punishments? Will he teach his daughters that they have a duty to uphold the life of his granddaughter or grandson in their womb after their mistake?

President Obama, please think and pray long and hard about it.

It’s your call to responsibility.

Against Pornography

(Warning: the content below may not be suitable for those under 13, but I think it's OK for them too.)

I just had someone search for "against pornography" on this blog. I have not written on this topic much if at all. But it's a strange coincidence that I just finished listening to a talk by Christopher West on the Theology of the Body here ("Theology of the Body: A Bold, Biblical Response to the Sexual Revolution").

Other deep and meaningful articles by C. West are linked below.
"'Pornographic Interference'"
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=67
"Hugh Hefner’s Longing for Love"
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=42
"Authentic Art vs. Pornography"
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=46
"Why Do Men Look at Porn? Oprah Viewers Want to Know"
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=19

My basic understanding is that by indulging in pornography, we continue to debase what sex is truly meant to be. This keeps us from seeing the other (person) as truly who they are: a beautiful creature created by God. Until we reverse this thinking, we will never be truly satisfied by what we were created to truly (not falsely puritanically/demonically) desire. We were meant to reflect God's Love, "God’s love is a love that yearns for intimacy with the 'other' and rejoices in that other’s beauty."

It is not wrong to long for intimacy. We must instead orient our longing towards what will ultimately satisfy. On Earth, the longing is for the opposite sex in marriage to fully give our life to the other or for a foretaste of union with God (in real celibacy). Ultimately and Divinely, it's for God. Sex is meant to be a direction marker towards Peace and fulfillment in God that is bodily imprinted in our very selves.

Pornography rapes the mind and the soul through the body!

This is a partial explanation of why I'm against pornography and why I think all people should read and listen to the Theology of the Body.

It will change your life forever!

Governor Kaine Pro-Life?

Today, I got an email from DFLA (Democrats for Life). I can't reproduce the email, but from their website:

Please read this article about President elect Obama appointing pro-life Democrat and DFLA member Governor Kaine as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I responded with the following email:

Governor Tim Kaine is not pro-life. See the lifesitenews[.com] link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/search/index.html?cx=partner-pub-8135422256096759%3Abgo9vm-3lml&client=google-coop-np&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Tim+Kaine#673 . Please remove the "Pro-life" label from his name. He is pro-abortion as a choice (PAAAC; http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/04/paaac-pak-and-otaaac-o-tak .html )

From lifesitenews.com:

Obama recently selected as the next DNC chairman Democratic Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a Catholic who rejected the death penalty by invoking the Catholic belief that "life is sacred," yet who supports Roe v. Wade for protecting the "personal liberty" to choose abortion.

He's a card carrying member of DFLA? I guess keep your enemies closer...

At least Judas didn't betray Jesus until after/during the Last Supper.

(Again it all comes down to this question, when are all men created equal with the right to life? I say with the Church (and even some Atheists): at conception!)

Obama: the New Lincoln from Illinois

Yes, President-Elect Obama was a US and state senator from Illinois from where President Lincoln originated. He plans to take a train trip from Philadelphia to DC via Baltimore like Lincoln did (it's part of the trip Lincoln took). He will use the same Bible for his inauguration that Lincoln did.

My OTAAAC questions are these:

Will he make an executive order that will define a pre-born baby as a human person?

Will he make a New Emancipation Proclamation to be enshrined as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that will free all unborn humans from the clutches of death?

Will the phrase "that all men are created equal" be again expanded to include pre-born humans as it was for women and persons of all races?

I pray to God for a miracle.

As it is said here in Baltimore: Believe!

Fr. Neuhaus is Freed from Babylon

On January 8, Fr. Neuhaus died.

Right before he died, he was working on a book entitled American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile. May he enjoy the ultimate freedom from this Babylonian exile with the Church Triumphant as Christ promised to the faithful.

Amen.

Please Pray for Fr. Neuhaus

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor of First Things is dying.

Let us pray for him and ask for the intersession of Mary at his hour of death.

In Jesus' name,
Amen.