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The first of the two main points I had about FOCA was that Roe v. Wade ("Roe") had been superseded in substantial part by Pl.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?)