Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Planned Parenthood

Understanding the Epic Divide

The Divide

The very obvious epic divide between right and left in our nation, along with any discussion of unification or bridging of that divide, necessitates defining and understanding the world views projected by the right and by the left, and then searching for common ground.

This article seeks not to malign or denigrate any group.
In fact, we begin here with the presupposition that good Americans on both sides truly want what is best for our country, and are passionate about pursuing that good.

The problem comes in defining what is desirable and what is good.

The key to overcoming the divide is reason and understanding.
Also, the best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend.

Surprising Issue Surfaces- a Possible Clue?

One of the major issues that reflect this divide is the hot-button issue of abortion, which, for the first time in this election, took center stage at the Presidential debates. Quite frankly, in this writer’s opinion, the very grisly partial birth abortion may have been the straw that broke Hillary Clinton’s back in the 2016 Presidential Election. Trump deftly showcased to America Hillary’s cold and rigid position on the killing of a partially born human child. Although certainly not the only issue at stake, abortion is certainly a highly charged and very emotional issue on both sides.

Abortion has, after decades of being relegated to an unimportant “social” issue, bubbled up to the top of the conservative’s priority list, and continues to be a big priority for both sides – not only for Progressives like Hillary, who have been vocal all along on the essential nature of abortion to their platform, but also for the future Trump Administration.

In a mind-blowing first, one of the first actions of the 115th Congress last week was to release a report on the sanctity and dignity of human life, and on the revelations of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, particularly in their sale of fetal body parts. To add to the surprise, the report came from a very unexpected source — from the Select Investigative Panel of the Energy and Commerce Committee – from which one would more likely expect reports on fracking or trade, NOT on the sanctity of life or on Planned Parenthood. See the remarkable commentary by John Stonestreet at Breakpoint. Clearly, the Trump administration is prioritizing the issue of abortion from a remarkably different perspective than that favored by Obama and Hillary.

Swept Under the Rug for Decades

The festering, neglected and unspoken problems of the epic divide, including the controversy over abortion, have been brewing now for decades. These issues have been skillfully skirted by politicians and have been side-stepped by American voters, in a well-intentioned effort at tolerance, an effort aimed at absorbing all views into our American melting pot of freedom and protected human rights. The most important issues, which are the moral issues, were long labeled “social” issues, and were swept under the rug, with varying success, until the 2016 Presidential debates.

And therein lies a possible clue to our big divide—reasonable people rarely go ballistic over mundane issues. However, morality, and it’s definition, IS something that both sides of America can get passionate about.

Despite everyone’s desire to tolerate and to include all Americans in our melting pot, problems surface as our population diversifies, as our morality shifts, and as we pass more and more new laws. The problem boils down to the fact that not all human philosophies, beliefs, or religions are compatible, and in our American melting pot these incompatibilities surface, causing inevitable conflict time and again. The definition of what is good and what is evil is not uniform in all societies, and needs to be defined by the entire nation, if evil is to be contained.

Defining Good and Evil

When regulating and protecting human interactions by law, determining what is right or wrong, or defining a person’s “rights” becomes complicated. The “rights” of one person can infringe on the “rights” of another person, and as a society we are forced to choose which “rights” trump which “rights.”

Abortion is one primary place where “rights” of citizens can clash. In abortion, however hard as it might be to imagine that the rights of a child and those of the mother could possibly not be aligned, progressives do insist that the well-being of a mother could be damaged by the existence of a child, and they advocate favoring “rights” for the mother over “rights” for the child.

Another example where the “rights” of citizens can clash is in the treatment of those who have broken the law. The rights of people to be protected from crime must be balanced with the rights of an incarcerated person to be treated decently. Also, the definition of decent treatment, which has to be paid for by the tax payer, is an area of potential disagreement. For example, taxpayers who cannot afford college for their own children could resent paying for college educations for prisoners.

Which brings up the question of defining “rights” altogether. Is a free college tuition a “right?” Does our nation have the budget to provide that? Does going into debt to pay for such “essentials” not steal from future citizens who will have to pay the bills we incur? If free contraception becomes a “right”under ObamaCare, why is free Tylenol not a “right?” Does free food or free housing then become a “right?”

Obviously, rights, and the definition of good and evil become very complicated.
And government gets the job of passing laws to balance those rights fairly, and to enforce the laws that were passed.

Defining Rights

Defining rights to intangible things is easier than tangible things.
We can say a person has a right life – to not being killed.
To liberty – to not being locked up.

To the pursuit of happiness – to choose their path in life.

But defining the right to tangible things is much more dangerous ground, because somebody has to actually pay for the thing that we declared everyone has a “right” to.

Finally, the amount of material things we can have varies tremendously, and depends on what is available. During a war, people ration and semi-starve, and may do it willingly. During a natural disaster, same thing. And people with an unrealistic grasp of economy cannot go around passing laws about what everyone has a “right” to have, if there is simply not enough to go around.

Pie offers a good simplistic example.
One can say that everyone deserves a slice of pie.
But if there is not enough pie, what happens then?

We have to redefine how much pie each person “deserves,” or has a right to.
In this life, there is not always enough of everything to go around, and if you throw away the right of ownership of property, and allow anyone who feels deprived, or feels envy, to demand what belongs to others, you have chaos.

Let the Rich Pay!!

The left frequently advocates shaking down the rich for funds, like the recent story put out by the World Economic Forum about the 8 richest men in the world who own as much as the poorest half of the world (that would be 3.6 billion of us).  A shocking statistic, for sure, but, sadly, this incompetent (or intentionally misleading) reporting would provide NO SOLUTION to the world economic situation, even if we were to repossess all their wealth, send all 8 to Siberia, and divide up all their wealth among the 3.6 billion poorest.

Why? Because, IF the claim is true and is not FAKE NEWS, then the total net worth of the 8 men, $427 billion, divided by the poorest half, 3.6 billion, equals a grand total of $119 per person.  After which the billionaires would be gone, and we would have nobody to fleece next year.

And the jobs they create would be gone, too.
Not mentioned is also the fact that most of these 8 people are Progressives, so why all the hate for conservatives?!?!
AND, the fact the the median American household income, $55,775, would cover 469 poor people if we took this approach.

Nobody mentions that the number of poor in the world is so great, and the number of super-rich is so small, that the rich do not have enough to pay for what progressives want.  To pay for what progressives want, the whole world would have to produce more money, and we would have to fleece not only Bill Gates, the #1 richest guy, but you and me and the Americans receiving unemployment checks as well.

Bottom line, we have to be careful about what we define as a “right,” and if we do, we have to indicate who is responsible for providing that right, particularly if that right involves a material thing.

Balancing People’s Rights

The simplest solution to this balancing act – to the balancing of rights of one citizen against the rights of another citizen, and declaring what is or is not a right—has been provided in the past by religion.
Religion outlined what rights a person had, what infringed on those rights, and what remedies were appropriate when those rights were violated.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States refers to God-given rights which the colonies felt were being violated by the English monarchy, and which colonialists wanted to guarantee for every future American citizen. Those God-given rights included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to defining good and evil, most people in this country used to acknowledge the Ten Commandments, which are actually the foundation and basis of most European and American law.
The moral beliefs of citizens, primarily those of Christian and Jewish citizens, since they were the most numerous, these moral beliefs stemming from their millennia of religious background, were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States and were voted into law via democratic process.

Religion Versus Self as the Boss

But religion has suffered decline in the United States since the 1950’s.
The Ten Commandments went out the window, one after another.

Despite the fact that 90% of Americans still say they believe in God, and 80% say they pray and they feel that their prayers are answered, many Americans have shifted in their definitions of what is right and wrong. They have shifted from looking to religion for guidance on these issues, to looking inwardly to their own thoughts to define what is right and what is wrong. The word for this is relativism. What is right for you may not me right for me, and I have a “right” to decide what is right for me.

One of the problems with looking to ourselves to define what is right or wrong is that most people are not experts in logic, and are very gullible to the first argument they come across that argues a seemingly convenient particular point. They do not realize that a convincing argument can be made for ANY position and for ALL positions, and that some people spend their lives becoming experts in debate, in law, in ethics, and in morality. Yet, despite all this training, the tendency of the human mind is to choose first what we want, then to find the logical construct that justifies what we want. Very few people truly seek truth and fairness, even when that represents a loss of what they wanted for themselves. Simply stated, our minds play tricks on us, and we seek the argument that gives us what we want, fair or not.

Another problem with looking to ourselves to define what is right or wrong is that it is not wise to assume that I myself am more intelligent, capable and informed than the best minds of history, and, if one concedes that there might be a God, that I myself am more intelligent, capable and informed than God Himself. So the very progressives who respect and deify many medical, legal, engineering and scientific experts, and who would not dream of building a house, curing their symptoms, or even making important life decisions without consulting an “expert,” presume to know how to evaluate the rights of all human beings, and to declare what is right and wrong, based on their own instincts and feelings, without training of any kind.

The Essence of the Divide

It makes a great deal of sense to point out that the most fundamental difference between the right and the left, the item that contributes most seriously to the epic national divide, is the disagreement on whether religion, the belief in a bigger super-power, or ourselves are boss.

And before the Freedom From Religion – Religion is Medieval – Only Stupid Weak People Need Religion mantra kicks in here, please consider the fact that IF the more religious half (or 80%) of America happens to be right, and there IS a God, and He HAS interacted with humanity and given us some guidelines (such as the Ten Commandments), the idea of following the guidelines of an infinitely vaster intelligence than ours, and of an infinitely kinder heart than ours, might just be a good idea.

An additional point on the Ten Commandments—even in the absence of an all-good and all-intelligent God, there is something to be said for the cumulative wisdom of ages of human beings and societies who have survived by those tried and tested rules for millennia to this day. It would take quite the ego to dismiss the cumulative wisdom of history and presume that I myself have the genius to dismiss and to better the wisdom of humanity with all its faults to date.

So Here Comes the Conservative Spin?

This is NOT an attempt to judge those who are not religious, because those who look inward for the definition of moral values might certainly be very sincere. We are trying not to judge, but to point out the shift in values in the United States that has occurred since around 1950.
And yes, this author IS conservative and religious, but is also trying to work towards communication via reason and with good will.
If nothing else, my writing will help progressives understand the thought processes that operate in the mind of one conservative, and realize that conservatives do not deserve the hateful pigeon-holing they have been subjected to following Election 2016.

People on both sides should find this analysis interesting.
There are religious people on both sides of these issues.
Some of the most ardent progressives claim to be religious – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, and others.
So read on, and consider what is being proposed.

Difference Chart

Let’s document some of the differences in beliefs that have surfaced in much of our nation in recent decades:
(Please indulge the introduction of the Ten Commandments to make this point.)

  1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.

God is no longer the overriding value superseding all others today.
Many try to ban all mention of God from public life.
The highest value, the top “god” today, is probably MONEY (in Ten Commandments language, the golden calf).

  1. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

Cursing God is now fine. In fact, much of Hollywood glorifies blasphemy, and even the expression “Jesus Christ” is often used as a curse word.
(I personally apologize to God every time I hear someone use the phrase disrespectfully, and I bow my head every time it is used appropriately.)

  1. Remember to keep holy the LORD’S Day.

Sunday or the Sabbath is no longer holy, nor is Christmas, Easter, etc. For many, shopping has become a higher priority than attendance at Church

  1. Honor your father and your mother.

Government has started to take over the role of father and mother, for example, with Common Core teaching values to children that are in direct conflict with most Christian religions. Government is trying to legislate how our children are to be raised. Many children have no respect for their parents, and even strike them.

  1. You shall not kill.

Over 1 million babies are aborted (killed) in the United States each year, and we came very close to electing a woman who supports partial birth abortion, the killing of a full-term baby half-way during birth. Abortion may be a much bigger deal than you think. We are working on legalizing euthanasia, and we are routinely pardoning, tolerating, and releasing numerous violent criminals, particularly if they represent votes.

  1. You shall not commit adultery.

Marriage has suffered much, and many citizens no longer value chastity before marriage. Adultery, and any form of sexual transgression is considered to be fine, as long as both adults are willing. Recently, prostitution by underage children has been decriminalized in California. This cripples the efforts of law enforcement to convict pimps who manage child prostitution, because then the children cannot testify against the pimps.

  1. You shall not steal.

Property crime is no longer prosecuted in San Francisco. Stealing is often excused and even justified. Government taxation is headed toward stealing as well – demanding larger and larger taxation “rights” on the income of citizens. The right to ownership of property is very much in question.
Some don’t realize that there was a time in the United States when there was no taxation at all.

  1. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Lying is no longer considered shameful, but is celebrated by funny and popular TV shows like Seinfeld. Fake News is widespread and seriously maligns many people. Politicians are re-elected by American voters, even following the exposure of numerous lies and manipulations. Truth, which used to be highly valued and venerated, is now discarded and almost despised. See What is Truth? Does Truth Matter? for an interesting analysis of why Truth might be important, after all.

  1. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

Your neighbor’s wife is not off limits, provided you both agree to the liaison. Everybody tries to dress and look “hot,” and there is no attempt whatsoever in fashion to avoid being sexually provocative.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Today, covet away!
Most people don’t even know what the word “covet” means.
Hating those who have more than you and automatically labeling them as evil is common. Glorying in the idea of punishing the rich is very popular, and dismisses realities, such as the fact that the combined total assets of all the rich are not enough to impact the quality of life of the masses, and that the rich actually provide many jobs for the poor. Enjoying the idea of punishing the rich even if it does not help you is a serious form of envy.

What Do the Ten Commandments Have to Do With Anything?

Both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution of the United States, which was written by Christians, reflect a Judeo-Christian worldview. For years, the Ten Commandments have been displayed in courtrooms across the United States.

In recent decades we have been passing laws which drift away from that view, and we have been decriminalizing various activities that were previously considered illegal.
These changes have been driven by seeming compassion, and by the drifting away from religious values that has occurred in the United States. The unfortunate result of the drift is that our system of laws now represents a mass of internal contradictions, which require a highly trained lawyer to manipulate, and justice is not always served. The courts can even become a game of manipulation, deception and farce.

At this point we also have people who resent the still obvious Judeo-Christian roots of our Constitution and of our system of laws. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a testimony to that. Yet the Freedom From Religion Foundation, despite claiming to reject religion, simply promotes religion of a different kind.  Every Christmas the Freedom From Religion Foundation places a plaque at the Wisconsin State Capitol which celebrates the Winter Solstice – a pagan religious celebration. Pagan beliefs are being substituted for Christian beliefs, in the name of eliminating religion.

Some might say that religion should be done away with, but those are unaware that religion is actually a belief system or worldview, and ALL of us have belief systems, whether we have given them a name or not. Even the most progressive atheists evolve a system of beliefs that become as passionate as any religious group, including abortion rights, global warming, and other progressive doctrines that are imposed by ridicule and by force.

Alternative Value Systems

If we were to abandon Judeo-Christian principles and rewrite the Constitution, something that some progressive leaders and Justices are already advocating, it would be hard to create a value system that is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions– contradictions which lead to chaos.

Adopting other common philosophies, such as Atheism, or Islam, would inflame the sensibilities of numerous Americans who still hold fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs. And it is not trivial to come up with a new system of beliefs with no internal contradictions and with a consistent logical message.

Atheism is not compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview. In the Judeo-Christian world, God has placed limits on all people, including leaders and powerful people. A king cannot take the property or the wife of another. The leader is accountable to God for his/her actions, and is expected to observe the rules of justice. The Christian worldview values human life above all, and the taking of innocent human life is not permitted, even if the goals are desirable. Even kings must justify the taking of human life according to specific criteria.
Atheism, in contrast to Christianity, places no limits on the power of leaders or of individuals. Atheism frees leaders to impose their will on the nation without justification. Under atheism, the ends justify the means. If the government feels it can accomplish some good by sacrificing me and my family, it is free to do so. My Lithuanian grandparents were sent to Siberia by the atheist/communist Soviet Union, upon its occupation of Lithuania, and they had done absolutely nothing wrong. They were declared to be “capitalists” because they owned a 1-acre farm, one cow and a sewing machine, their possessions were taken away from them, and they were sent to Siberia.

Sharia Law is also incompatible with the Judeo-Christian world view, and with the Constitution of the United States. Sharia law does not acknowledge inviolable human rights for family members, and permits severe corporal punishment, including punishment to the point of death, by the heads of families.

Under Sharia law, there are no limits on the power of heads of families, religious leaders, and heads of state.

The New Morality

A new (experimental) morality has been creeping into our nation, one law at a time, and supplanting the Judeo-Christian values we used to have, without internal consistency. It has not been well planned, is not systematic, or even internally consistent on any new modern moral plane.

For example, the killing of a fetus/baby is permitted even after partial birth, but the killing of a pregnant woman counts as TWO killings by law. Can the murder of a human being, and the jail term of a killer, truly be dependent on what that woman was thinking? Was she walking home or to Planned Parenthood for an abortion? Can the number of crimes committed by a killer be determined by the thoughts that were going through the murdered woman’s mind? Can a murderer go to jail for the same action for which the abortionist is extolled?

Consider another example, sex with underage children, which is, understandably, a crime. Yet teachers are required to illustrate condom use to young children in classrooms, and the very children who are taught to be “Healthy, Happy and Hot” in their classrooms, become felons when one of the young couple turns 18 and becomes guilty of statutory rape of their younger girlfriend or boyfriend. Our sexual standards impose many confusing inconsistencies on young people today.

Numerous such inconsistencies exist in our new and jumbled morality, and many conservative Americans object to the newly introduced (experimental) morality, and have concluded that the experiment has failed.

Science Takes a Back Seat to the New Experimental Morality

As the failings and drawbacks of the new experimental morality surface, those who want that new morality very badly simply ignore truth and science, they sweep the damage done to other people under the rug, and they make sure that facts and science take a back seat to their progressive agenda.

The progressive leadership of our country has misquoted and swept science under the rug habitually, as problems with the new morality surface.

Government-sponsored sex education does not educate children about the data on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), misleads children into thinking that a condom will take care of everything, and fails to tell children that in 2011 the United States Center for Disease Control pointed out on their website that abstinence is the best form of prevention for STDs (this important fact has since even been removed from the CDC website).

Hiding the Truth

President Obama, a big sponsor of the new morality, withheld release of the results of a government-sponsored survey on abstinence, the results of which did not support Obama’s progressive agenda. The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) performed a study (National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents) which showed that 70% of parents and 60% of teens favor abstinence before marriage. The study was ready for publication on Feb 26, 2009, but the Obama administration delayed its release for 1-½ years, until August 23, 2010.

The study results were theb released very quietly, and were later buried deeper on the HHS website, in such a way that searching obvious phrases such as “abstinence” did not call up the study, and a knowledge of the study title or project number was needed to access the study. Finally, a warning is posted for those who have succeeded in tracking down the study: This is a historical document. Use for research and reference purposes only.

Yes, the government feels it must clarify that the document is historical, lest it be used to formulate current policy. By no means can we acknowledge that most of America disagrees with the progressive government’s promiscuous agenda for our children.

Where can we see the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents?

Back to the Divide

The two alternatives, Judeo-Christian morality, and self-invented modern morality, are in complete contradiction.

  • We cannot simultaneously allow abortion and declare abortion to be murder.
  • We cannot encourage sexual experimentation in children, then jail them as soon as they turn 18.
  • We cannot pass laws that punish Christian Churches for not placing adopted children with homosexual couples, and allow Christian Churches protection of their religious freedom and beliefs at the same time. (If Christian Churches believe that a healthy life for a child necessitates both a mother and a father, it is not the role of government to force Churches to place adoptive children in homosexual homes. If government wants such placement, government should run adoptive agencies. If homosexuals want such placement, homosexuals should run adoptive agencies. But the idea of government forcing Christian Churches how to direct their charities is a violation not only of religious freedom, but also of “separation of Church and State,” which goes both ways.)
  • We cannot give unlimited benefits to various groups of citizens, without considering whether we have the money to hand out, who is paying the bills, or whether the bills are NOT being paid.

(Most people do not have the time to do their own analysis, and media fails to do the analysis for us, but this author HAS done the analysis— spreading 100% of the wealth of the United States today would not solve our financial problems or poverty, and we would then still be faced with zero wealthy people to tax next year. Most of us are not aware of how few really wealthy people and how many poor people there are,)

  • We cannot brag that 98% of all published scientists support global warming, when the government makes sure that global warming opponents get no research funds, and therefore cannot publish.

We cannot cater simultaneously to all groups, when their beliefs on what is right and what is wrong are in direct conflict.
We cannot hand out more pie than there is.

Decision Making When Paths are Incompatible

We have to acknowledge that we can’t always have what we want, NOBODY can always have what they want, and sometimes my getting what I want can step on the toes of somebody else not getting what they want.

Decision mechanisms when people cannot all get what they want include:

  • Free-for-all fight, and the most powerful win (Anarchy, King of the Mountain, or Chaos)
  • An Authority Dictates (Dictatorship)
  • Democracy (We all vote)

My preference? Democracy.
Even when my (conservative) side was losing the battle, during the last 8 years of Obama administration, I respected the system and tolerated a government which violated my world view and my view of what is right and what is wrong.
I thought sadly that if I live in a country that rejects my values, I must put up with it, or move elsewhere. Or pray that my fellow citizens see the light, begin to see things my way, and vote to restore my worldview.
I became a blogger, and have spent the last decade trying to persuade people with reason of the validity of my beliefs.

Now the tide of public opinion has turned, and the conservatives must be given a chance at government.
And yes, I have heard that many say the popular vote has NOT given conservatives a majority mandate.

Yes, We All Know that Progressives Think the Election Was Stolen

Most are familiar with the issue of the popular vote versus the electoral votes.

Hillary Clinton got more popular votes, but Donald Trump won the election because he earned more electoral votes. The electoral votes allotted to each State do not correspond directly to the number of voters in that state, so in close elections it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, nor the Presidency.

An important point needs to be made about the electoral system.
The founders of this country were actually wise in choosing the electoral college instead of the popular vote as the method for selection of the President.
They did not want the choice of President always to be decided by the largest, most populous State, with little regard for the smaller ones.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic, and is similar to that used by classical institutions. The Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons. See the US Election Atlas for more details on the evolution of the Electoral College plan.
The concept can be simplified by example.
If the colonies wanted more rural, less populated States to join the union (and to provide food for the nation from their farms), they had to offer those States a guarantee that their rights would not be trampled and they would not be dominated by the States which were more populous and which had larger cities.
The same principle applies today—should the population of one State be able to dictate the fate of the the entire United States?
Hillary Clinton won California by such a large margin in 2016 ( 4.6 million votes) that her entire advantage came from just that one State. Should Californian values be permitted to steer the values of the entire United States?

No, even if Hillary did get 2-3 million more popular votes, the election was NOT stolen.
The electoral college system protects all of America from being dominated by one State – in the case of 2016, California.

Reasons Why Trump May Actually HAVE WON the Popular Vote

An added point about the popular vote:
Conservatives are just as unhappy about the closeness of the election as progressives are.
While progressives point out that Hillary won the popular vote by 2-3 million votes, conservatives point out that if we corrected the popular vote totals for frequently demonstrated massive voter fraud and for illegal immigrants with illegal voting cards, Hillary would have had at least 3 million fewer votes.

According to PEW Research, 24 million (one of every eight) voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate, more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state. That’s almost 30 million votes that are very susceptible to potential fraud.

These figures, combined with the frequently documented voter fraud exercised by “community organizers” and practitioners of “Alinsky tactics” of the left, call into serious question the exact numbers of the 2016 popular vote.

Alinsky Tactics and the Left

It is well documented that Hillary Clinton was a student of Alinsky, and that Barack Obama taught Alinsky tactics in the past. And Alinskyk tactics are Satanist Saul Alinsky’s 13 rules for political warfare, which are described in a book that Alinsky dedicated to Lucifer (Satan).   Needless to say, Alinsky tactics violate all rules of fair Christian behavior, and they describe how a minority can fight, lie, manipulate, and finagle their way against the despised majority, which limits themselves to Judeo-Christian rules of behavior.

Hillary’s recent collection of scandals– Benghazi lies, security breeches to escape accountability for email communications, the Clinton Foundation traitorous pay-for-play allegations, which are being proven just 2 months after the election, as well as the unethical tactics used against Bernie Sanders—this documented track record of “Alinsky” (in Judeo-Christian language “immoral”) behavior on the part of the progressives in the Democrat Party, certainly make election fraud allegations towards the Democrat Party credible.

Although nobody claims that conservatives are free of any misdeeds, it is still more likely that people who support Judeo-Christian morality might have a lower incidence of illegal deceptive tactics than those who actively teach, advocate and employ Alinsky tactics and “community organizing.” Just this week, news surfaced of progressives plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during what they call the “Deploraball” event scheduled for January 19th. These progressives were meeting at the Washington D.C. pizza place that was mentioned in the Hillary-Podesta emails.  Today, the news  holds more on shocking progressive tactics — progressives held a training camp on disrupting the inauguration and how to handle being arrested, and hundreds of the LGBT community held a dance party in the street outside Vice President-Elect Mike Pence’s home.  CNN has even gone so far as to point out that if Donald Trump were to be killed during the Inauguration, an Obama appointee would become President.  The right has never planned and executed such interference and disruption of progressive events, discussed the killing of a progressive opponent, or targeted progressives in their homes.  

Why Can’t We Just Compromise?

Many of the most contentious issues today do not lend themselves to compromise.
Abortion, gay marriage, and sex education (chastity versus promiscuity) are examples of things that cannot go both ways.
A choice has to be made.

 

  • It is not possible to take both roads when you reach a fork, as Yogi Berra can attest.
  • We cannot aim for individual freedom and for governmental control of personal life and personal thought at the same time.
  • We cannot outlaw and allow abortion simultaneously.
  • We cannot both allow and forbid guns.
  • We cannot preserve traditional marriage and allow homosexual marriage at the same time.
  • We cannot respect religious freedom and require all doctors to perform abortions concurrently.
  • We cannot enforce immigration law and simultaneously have open borders.
  • We cannot build up military defense and reduce military defense at the same time.
  • We cannot base our Constitution and Bill of Rights on God-given rights, yet forbid the public mention of God and of religion.
  • We cannot respect Judeo-Christian values and delete Judeo-Christian values from our laws concurrently.
  • We cannot have a Supreme Court which decrees national law and policy without regard to the beliefs of the American population- most of the above mentioned issues have involved decrees by Supreme Court and by Executive Action which are in disagreement with the beliefs of most Americans.
  • We cannot have a Democratic Republic in which elected Representatives of the people do not represent the wishes of the people and in which politically appointed Supreme Court Justices overrule the will and the religious beliefs of the people.

This is why some advocate leaving these most difficult issues to the States, so that, for example, a progressive State such as California could allow progressive policies, and both liberals and conservatives could live in States which offered the policies that are most important to them.

The idea that the Federal government should not control issues that Americans struggle to agree on is one that Trump has been proposing. On these issues, local control would be local.

Think, dear progressive co-Americans—wouldn’t it be great if we could make room in America for both sides of the ethical and political spectrum?

In Trump’s language, that would be HUGE!

What is the Left So Afraid to Lose?

What are the main issues that the left to panic when considering a conservative or a Trump Presidency?

  • Abortion?
  • Gay Marriage?
  • Welfare?

The Worst Case Scenario and the Most Likely Outcome

Abortion: There is little danger of abortion becoming unavailable in the United States.

I must honestly admit that I would like it if we were forbidden by law to kill inconvenient unborn infants the same as we are not permitted by law to kill inconvenient elders or spouses or children who have already been born.
But I also realize that we live in a democracy, and so long as so many Americans support abortion, abortion is not likely to go away.

The worst case scenario for progressives is that they may have to pay for their abortion themselves, instead of making me pay for it, which is against my ethics (It’s only fair– I have to pay for my own thyroid surgery and my own childbirth!).
They may have to shift to less permissive sexual behavior and more self control—something all of us should strive for constantly.
They may have to travel to a neighboring State for their abortion.

These might not be progressive first choices, but progressives must also realize that it is not the conservative first choice to pay for other people’s children to be aborted, particularly when a disproportionate number of those victims are minority babies.
It is also not the conservative first choice to live in a country where our children cannot be doctors, pharmacists or lawyers, because our Federal laws demand everyone in those professions to participate in abortion-related activities which are against our moral beliefs.

Whose right is more important—the right of a woman to enjoy unlimited sex, including premarital sex and promiscuous sex, or the right of a tiny human being not to be killed by his/her mother?

The job of the government is not to give progressives ALL their wishes, but to balance the rights of all citizens against each other in an ethical way.

We can’t always get what we want – progessives, OR conservatives.
And Christian doctrine always requires that the needs of the weakest be considered first – and who is smaller and weaker than an unborn child?

We appeal to progressives to realize that abortion is advocated only by people who have already been born. The unborn have no voice, other than the voice of conservatives.

Gay Marriage: There is little danger of homosexuality returning to the criminal status it previously held in this country decades ago.

The worst case scenario is that homosexual couples may be limited to civil unions, which do not threaten those of us who believe that marriage is central to the health and security of children and of our future society.
Progressives must realize that their wish for homosexual marriage has some unintended consequences on the rest of us. The moment we allowed homosexual marriage, Catholic adoption agencies had to close their doors, because the federal government requires them by law to do something their faith forbids: to place adoptive children with homosexual couples.
Whose rights are more important—gays to call their union “marriage,” or orphans to get free adoption services that the Catholic Church provides?
See Gay Marriage and Homosexuality for more ways in which the redefinition of marriage hurts the rights of Christian Americans.

Progressives need to realize that their wish to have homosexual unions be called “marriage” impacts the rights of conservative citizens not to have progressive doctrine forced on their Church charitable adoption programs, on public school sex education programs, and on bakeries which prefer not to bake cakes featuring images of homosexual unions.

Welfare: There is no danger of Social Security or Medicare being cancelled by conservatives.

The ObamaCare that is being repealed is a fiasco and failure, and WILL be replaced.

The worst case scenario is that some welfare programs will be streamlined to eliminate fraud and favoritism, and that more efforts will be made to offer jobs to those who are now dependent on welfare.

Two Last Words to the Left- Anarchy and Compassion

Word One about anarchy –

Of those who want to ignore the results of the 2016 election and attempt to delegitimize President-Elect Trump, we ask – what does Anarchy accomplish?

In what ways does the use of Alinsky Tactics such as riots, property damage and butyric acid terrorism accomplish anything?
What is your desired result?

Do progressives think that the Inauguration will be cancelled?
Do they think that Hillary will be given the Presidency?
By what mechanism could that be done?
Even if that was done, is Hillary’s moral history anything to pin our hopes on?

If the progressive goal is to weaken President Trump, so that he would make less progress on the progressive action items we’ve mentioned above, do progressives not realize that a weakened President and administration will not only be weak on abortion, but also in every other area, including our economy and our safety from terrorism? Do you really want to sink the ship you are sitting in?

Word Two about compassion –

Progessives are very admirable in their stated compassion.
But consider the opposite of compassion – heartlessness.

Do progressives not realize that some of their priorities are only compassionate towards one set of people, and only compassionate on the surface?
That some of their priorities become very heartless when the needs and rights of another group of citizens is considered?
Compassion towards a pregnant woman can also be heartless cruelty towards her partially born baby?

All Americans, progressive and conservative want to be compassionate.
We pick different issues on which our compassion focuses, depending our life experience.
We can’t always get what we want, and we can’t be compassionate to all at the same time.
The wishes of citizens and prisoners are opposed to each other and need to be balanced.
The wishes of Christians and Atheists are opposed to each other and need to be balanced.
The wishes of men and women are different, and need to be balanced.
The needs of parents and of children, as well as of teachers, need to be balanced.
Isn’t it time to start realizing that we all intend good, we are all compassionate, and we all have different perspectives that need to have a chance to be tried and to be heard?

Isn’t It Time? 

The Constitution of the United States has set up a framework for this balancing exercise to take place, and has served us reasonably well for centuries.
It is time for progressives to accept a temporary correction and to allow conservatives to have a hand in the game.

Let us all root for each other, pray for each other and, above all, pray for the new President of the United State, Donald Trump.

For the anti-Trumpers, you can always pray for your enemies- prayer helps everyone concerned.

One of the best attributes of conservatives is that they do not have to resort to butyric acid, but can pray.

It’s now time to give conservatives a chance.

 

 

 

Gay Marriage:

Activist Judge Logic Versus Monsignor Logic

.

Gay Marriage in the United States

Slide2

GOVERNMENT BY … THE PEOPLE?… BY EXECUTIVE ORDER?… BY PROGRESSIVE PROCLAMATION?

The Obama administration has been promoting the gay agenda for some time now, including the 2011 White House announcement of it’s intention not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA is a federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under laws of other states.

By refusing to defend DOMA, the White House fails to defend and enforce the law of the United States, taking upon itself the authority to override laws which have been passed by Congress, to override laws which represent the people of the United States.

In fact, lawsuits are in progress against President Obama over his abuse of executive authority, particularly abuse of executive orders.

Gay Marriage in Wisconsin

Similar things are happening in Wisconsin.

In November of 2006, 59% of the voters in Wisconsin approved an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage or any substantially similar legal status.  The people of Wisconsin had spoken, and gay marriage was banned in Wisconsin.

On June 6, 2014,  Federal Judge Barbara Crabb single-handedly annulled the will of the people.  She ruled  that Wisconsin’s  ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

Aside: To complicate things, her ruling did not remove the ban; it simply declared the ban unconstitutional.  When hopeful county clerks in Madison began issuing marriage licenses to hopeful same-sex couples, Judge Crabb had to restate the fact that  she had not issued an injunction allowing marriage licenses to be issued. Gay marriage was still “on hold” in Wisconsin.

.
Background on this Judge

Judge Crabb was appointed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and “unexpectedly” took on Senior Status  in 2009 with President Obama’s approval.  Her stated intent for switching to Senior Status was to continue her work for the court while opening up a position for another federal judge.Slide1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Information sources Judgepedia and Wikipedia reveal that the  transition was a surprising one:
…………………….
BEFORE the switch: Judge Crabb made no noteworthy judicial rulings during her 30 year tenure as Federal Judge from 1979 to 2009.  Not one ruling was important enough to be noted by Judgepedia or Wikipedia.
ooo
AFTER the switch: She has made four extremely controversial, progressive, headline-making rulings in four years:

Judge’s Unexpected Maneuver

Judge Crabb’s surprising transition to controversial and obviously “progressive” rulings invites speculation.

Do Judge Crabb’s recent progressive rulings reflect an impartial legal judgement?
Her rulings seem to reflect instead a prejudice that has little to do with logic or the law.
Is Judge Crabb’s prejudice philosophical? Religious? Personal?

Slide2

Tipping the Scales

Could the Judge have been conscripted by a progressive organization such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in whose favor she has ruled more than once, and which represents only 1 per thousand atheists and one per 30,000 Americans?

oooo
Could it be that the Obama Administration recruited her to help with its progressive agenda, including President Obama’s efforts to promote the gay agenda?

ooo
What’s in it for Judge Crabb?
Why would a Judge suddenly make time for progressive controversial rulings?
Is anybody paying her, or rewarding her by some alternate means?

Regardless of her motivation, Judge Crabb started her progressive campaign with the most controversial ruling– eliminating for the first time the requirement that Judges behave impartially.
This set the stage for the chaotic rulings that followed.

What Is A Judge If Not Impartial?

A judge is a person who has the power to make decisions on cases brought before a court of law.
It is assumed that a judge rules fairly, impartially, and consistently with the rule of law.
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s code of judicial conduct spelled that out.
But Judge Crabb took it upon herself to reverse this requirement of a judge to be impartial.

Queen of Hearts

THE QUEEN OF HEARTS
from Alice in Wonderland

Such a decree, eliminating the requirement of impartiality for Judges, invalidates the purpose of the entire court system, and plunges society into a free-for-all-power-grab in which anyone who can bribe one judge wins.

The idea that one Judge could single-handedly make such a fundamental change in the functioning of American government is most disturbing.

The suggestion that a Judge who supports Planned Parenthood and Pro-Abortion political candidates publicly and financially could make impartial decisions on abortion as Judge is naive and unprofessional.

People who cannot limit their personal political activity in deference to the position of public trust that they hold as Judges are, by definition, not sufficiently impartial to hold the position of a Judge.

More Prejudiced Judgements (Progressive Proclamations)

Having set the stage with her first decision, having declared her right to rule without impartiality by Progressive Proclamation, Judge Crabb then went to town with subsequent prejudiced progressive proclamations, culminating now with her attempt to reverse Wisconsin’s same sex marriage ban.

Judge Crabb’s behavior since 2009 is reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the ultimate parody of impulsive and irresponsible authority.

article-2084800-0F678EA500000578-382_634x519

Obama’s 2009 Alice in Wonderland Party

Ironically, President Obama held a lavish Alice in Wonderland-themed Halloween Party at the White House in 2009, in the midst of a national recession, a party he kept secret for over two years, knowing that it would be bad PR.

Little did the nation know that the upside-down world of Alice in Wonderland, in which logic and even the laws of gravity are often reversed, would soon be the norm coming out of the White House and it’s progressive appointees.  (See also Embarrassing Women.)

The Judge’s Logic

Judge Crabb outlined the logic behind her reversal of the gay marriage ban:

  • The Judge first emphasized that the right of homosexuals to enter into a marriage contract is not related to religious teaching, to the morality of such unions, or to the ability of gay partners to maintain a marriage relationship or to raise children.
  • Then the Judge stated that the right of homosexuals to marry is related to liberty and equality, two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

The precise text of Judge Crabb’s justification:

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged.  It is not even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of maintaining a committed and loving relationship or raising a family together.  Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

.
The Fault in the Judge’s Logic

Slide1Judge Crabb’s logic is faulty.
.
Her first point above argues that the right of homosexuals to enter a marriage contract is not related to their ability to fulfill that contract.
.
Yet ALL legal contracts are not only related to the person’s ability to fulfill the contract, but are dependent upon the person’s ability to fulfill the contract:

  • Underage people cannot drive.
  • People with poor eyesight cannot be airplane pilots.
  • People without necessary qualifications cannot teach, cannot design bridges, practice at hospitals, or become police officers.

The Judge’s second point, that the right to marry is related to liberty and equality also fails the logic test.

ALL citizens in the United States are allowed to marry, to marry a person of the opposite sex, in the manner that marriage has been defined by, globally by all cultures for millennia.

The question here is whether a court has the right to redefine marriage, and what the legal consequences of such a redefinition could be.
Judge Crabb seems to have missed this fact, as she does not discuss the right of the court to redefine marriage, nor the legal implications of such a redefinition in her ruling.

Aside: the legal ramifications of the redefinition of marriage would, in fact,  redefine our entire society- see Bishop Morlino in Redefining Marriage Has Domino Effect on Family , Matt Barber in  Marriage Equality = Marriage Extinction, and What’s Wrong With Gay Marriage (my previous blog post).

Monsignor LogicmsgrHolmes photo

It did not surprise me when I found a much better, more logical analysis of the legality of gay marriage in my Catholic Parish’s Sunday bulletin.  The article was not written by a lawyer, nor by a judge, but by a Catholic priest, a Monsignor.

The answer came from my favorite Monsignor, the Pastor and Rector of  my parish, Madison’s Cathedral Parish- Monsignor Kevin Holmes.
Monsignor Holmes was born in Janesville, WI,  holds graduate degrees in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and studied for the priesthood a the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.

Monsignor Holmes addressed the two most pertinent questions:

  • Why Does the State Involve Itself with Regulating Marriage
    and
  • Why Don’t Gays Have the Necessary Qualifications for Marriage?

Here is Monsignor Holmes’ very logical analysis of  why there are legitimate reasons to restrict marriage to persons of opposite sex:
(from the Cathedral Parish Sunday bulletin, June 15, 2014)

 

From The Monsignor:

Slide1Dear Friends in Christ:
I feel compelled today to return to the topic of marriage, and the recent decision of Judge Crabb that Wisconsin lacks a “legitimate reason” to restrict marriage to persons of opposite sex.
.
I could say much about that in theological terms, citing the plan of the Creator. Those are important points to make, but here I want to restrict my argument to one based on reason – the kind of argument that a civil court can and ought to recognize.
.
What “legitimate reason” could the State have for defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship? There is an important prior question: Why does the State take an interest in marriage at all? Marriage confers recognition and certain benefits on adult persons who choose to enter a permanent and exclusive intimate relationship with each other. Why should the State take an interest in that?
.
On what basis should the State of Wisconsin prefer stable, long-term sexual relationships over multiple episodic sexual encounters? Why should the State “legislate morality” in this way? Doesn’t the State recognition of marriage deny “equal protection” (as to taxation, for example) to the sexually promiscuous? In the contemporary climate, it could plausibly be argued that all laws about marriage are unconstitutional for discriminating against those who are averse to commitment . . . unless the State has a “legitimate interest” in preferring stable sexual relationships.
.
Does the State have any rational basis for that preference? Sure it does: the fact that the sexual relationship between a man and woman can produce children. The State has an objective, non-sectarian interest in promoting a new generation of healthy and virtuous citizens, as well as an interest in having children supported as to their basic needs (food, shelter) by those who are rightly responsible for them. For this reason, the State has a legitimate reason for encouraging heterosexual couples to remain in a permanent union, and it rightly recognizes and privileges marriage, which is that relationship.
.
For the same reason, the State formerly had laws to protect the stability of marriage. There were laws against adultery. And in a case of marital infidelity, only the innocent party could obtain a divorce. A couple of generations ago, our demand for sexual license led the State to abdicate any responsibility to protect the stability of marriage, and now we have “no-fault divorce,” unfailingly granted at the request of either party with no justification required. I think a very good case can be made that the State’s refusal to protect the stability of marriage has been very detrimental to the culture. And if the State forgets even what marriage is, it will be far worse.
Msgr. Kevin D. Holmes

So There We Have It-
Monsignor Logic Versus Activist Judge Logic.

Sorry, Judge Crabb- Monsignor Wins!

 

Obama In Catholic Cathedral Pulpit

An interfaith service was held  at Boston’s Catholic Holy Cross Cathedral on April 18, 2013, dedicated to those affected by the terror attack at the Boston Marathon.  President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attended, and President Obama spoke at the gathering.

Slide1

Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of giving President Obama the pulpit in an American Catholic Cathedral can and will be argued, particularly by Catholics.

The use of a Catholic Church for public prayer at a time when Boston turns to God is a very powerful and appropriate symbol of the universality of the Catholic Church, and of its predominance in America and in the world.  The Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination in Boston, in Massachusetts, in the United States, and until, recently, in the world.

Obama at Holy Cross

President Obama at Holy Cross Cathedral

 

However, giving America’s most radically pro-abortion  President who supports the redefinition of marriage and of family, and who has spearheaded the violation of the religious freedom of Catholics in the United States, giving this President the pulpit in a Catholic Cathedral from which he can spread his dubious theology is also a contestable choice.

On President Obama’s violation of the religious freedom of Catholics:

Not surprisingly, prior to the interfaith service, the wisdom of letting President Obama take the pulpit at Holy Cross Cathedral was questioned by many.

Catholics asked themselves whether the Catholic Church’s customary role as mankind’s intermediary with God would be exercised through this arrangement, or whether the Catholic Church and her teachings would be debased by the presence of Barack Obama in the pulpit.  The same Barack Obama, who 6 days later became the first US President to speak at Planned Parenthood, where he ended his speech by invoking God’s blessings on Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood performs 1/3 million abortions per year, and receives over half a billion federal dollars annually towards that effort. Six out of ten Americans oppose federal funding of abortion (3 of 10 approve).  Abortion is a much bigger deal than most think.

U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attend an interfaith memorial service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross for the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing in Boston

The President and First Lady at Holy Cross Cathedral

The key to what would happen at the interfaith prayer service, whether it would facilitate a beautiful ecumenical lifting of souls to God, or whether it would resemble more a cheap political stunt debasing the Catholic Church, would lie in what each of the two men, Cardinal O’Malley and President Obama, said while standing in the pulpit.

As it turns out, neither man went to any heroic or shocking extremes, and it is not clear to this Catholic whether the use of Boston’s Holy Cross Cathedral for this purpose was appropriate.

Other faiths, in including Islam, were also represented at the prayer service.  Mercifully, the choice of Islam representative was corrected in the nick of time, before an Imam from a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Mosque ended up in the pulpit of Holy Cross Cathedral.

What Did the Cardinal and the President Say from the Pulpit?

The Cardinal:

For text of Cardinal O’Malley’s homily, scroll down below.

Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Duvall Patrick

The Obamas listen to religious speakers

 

In his homily, Cardinal O’Malley did somewhat courageously mentioned the culture of death, abortion, the devaluation of human life, and the need for steering clear of revenge.  These subjects reflect Catholic Church teaching, and are relevant and appropriate to the Boston Marathon tragedy.  Cardinal O’Malley’s role as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities made him an ideal spokesman on these issues.

f

Obamas at Interfaith Prayer Service

 

Other comments made by the Cardinal must have reflected his more personal views.  Cardial O’Malley voiced his disappointment over insufficient gun control, and made almost friendly, or at least neutral references to the Communist Party and to “community building,” a phrase that has taken on somewhat progressive political connotations in recent years.  The Catholic Church takes no position on gun control or on “community building,” but it does tread cautiously where Communism is concerned:

Paragraph 2425:    The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 The President:

The text of President Obama’s address is also provided below; scroll down.

519018745

President Obama speaks at Holy Cross Cathedral Interfaith Service

 

Mercifully, President Obama refrained from commenting on hot-button issues, and did nothing shocking like asking God to bless the dismemberment of unborn and accidentally born infants at Planned Parenthood.  He did not push his views directly, as he had done at the recent dedication of the George W. Bush Library, where he had promoted his immigration views.

g .The most controversial aspect of President Obama’s speech was his omissions.  The President avoided any mention of jihad or terrorism, and limited his reference to the bombers to calling them “perpetrators of such senseless violence — these small, stunted individuals.”

The President’s speech also reflected the his global world view, including a somewhat personal perspective.

President Obama’s assured Boston that those who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing would face justice. He said that Americans always “come together to celebrate life,” and referred to the source of American strength.  According to the President, our American strength comes from our faith in each other.  President Obama said that Boston is “the perfect state of grace,” and that the political and religious leaders of Boston, as well as the people of Boston, are the source of grace.

The President’s focus on people (instead of God) as the source of faith, of grace and of justice, was disconcerting.  Religious Americans usually consider God to be the source of faith, grace and justice.  Non-religious Americans generally avoid discussing faith and grace altogether, and struggle to agree on what constitutes justice.
So the President’s use of terms like the “state of grace” in a secular context made his intent somewhat obscure.

The President did reference God several times, as the source of our power, love, and self-discipline, as one Who holds close those who died, Who comforts their families, and Who will continue to watch over the United States.

Slide1

The President seemed to have no understanding of the irony of his comments regarding “celebrating life,” or “visiting death upon innocents” in Boston.  As President, he must know that half of his nation opposes abortion and two thirds of us oppose its federal funding.  So to speak of “celebrating life” and “death of innocents” in the aftermath of the Boston tragedy, while failing to show any compassion for the 1 million annual innocent lives lost to abortion, and failing to comment on the horror stories of the Gosnell abortion clinic trial and scandal, was bound to antagonize much of the President’s audience.

Text of Cardinal O’Malley’s homily:

Jesus said “they will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter”; that is what happened to His disciples after the Crucifixion, as they scattered in fear, doubt and panic.

Cardinal OMalley

Cardinal O’Malley speaks at Holy Cross Cathedral Interfaith Service

This week we are all scattered by the pain and horror of the senseless violence perpetrated on Patriots Day. Last Sunday at the 11:30 Mass here at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Fr. O’Leary led a special blessing for the many runners who participated in the Mass. Some people here were among those injured and those who witnessed the terrible events that unfolded at the finish line of the Marathon, but everyone was profoundly affected by the wanton violence and destruction inflicted upon our community by two young men unknown to all of us.

It is very difficult to understand what was going on in the young men’s minds, what demons were operative, what ideologies or politics or the perversion of their religion. It was amazing to witness, however, how much goodness and generosity were evidenced in our community as a result of the tragic events they perpetrated.

It reminds me of a passage in Dorothy Day’s autobiography where she speaks about experiencing a serious earthquake in California when she was a young girl. Suddenly neighbors that never spoke were helping each other, sharing their food and water, caring for children and the elderly. She was amazed and delighted, but a few weeks later people retreated to their former individualism and indifference.

Dorothy Day spent the rest of her life looking to recapture the spirit of community. That led her to the Communist Party and eventually it led her into the Catholic Church and to found the Catholic Worker Movement, dedicating herself to the care of the homeless, the drug addict

This past week we have experienced a surge in civic awareness and sense of community. It has been inspiring to see the generous and at times heroic responses to the Patriots Day violence. Our challenge is to keep this spirit of community alive going forward. As people of faith, we must commit ourselves to the task of community building.

Jesus teaches us in the Gospel that we must care for each other, especially the most vulnerable; the hungry, the sick, the homeless, the foreigner; all have a special claim on our love. We must be a people of reconciliation, not revenge. The crimes of the two young men must not be the justification for prejudice against Muslims and against immigrants.

The Gospel is the antidote to the “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” mentality. The parable of the Good Samaritan is the story about helping one’s neighbor when that neighbor was from an enemy tribe, a foreign religion, a hostile group. The Samaritan cuts through centuries of antipathy by seeing in the Jewish man who had been beaten and left for dead not a stranger or an enemy, but a fellow human being who has a claim of his humanity and compassion.

We know so little about the two young men who perpetrated these heinous acts of violence. One said he had no friends in this country, the other said his chief interests were money and his career. People need to be part of a community to lead a fully human life. As believers one of our tasks is to build community, to value people more than money or things, to recognize in each person a child of God, made in the image and likeness of our Creator.

The individualism and alienation of our age has spawned a culture of death. Over a million abortions a year is one indication of how human life has been devalued. Violent entertainment, films and video games have coarsened us and made us more insensitive to the pain and suffering of others. The inability of the Congress to enact laws that control access to automatic weapons is emblematic of the pathology of our violent culture.

When Pope John Paul II visited Madrid in 2003, addressing one million young people, he told them; “Respond to the blind violence and inhuman hatred with the fascinating power of love.” We all know that evil has its fascination and attraction but too often we lose sight of the fact that love and goodness also have the power to attract and that virtue is winsome. Passing on the faith means helping people to lead a good life, a moral life, a just life. Thus part of our task as believers is to help our people become virtuous.

Slide1

Plato thought that virtue was knowledge. As Chain Ginott, the concentration camp survivor, reminds us, doctors, nurses, scientists and soldiers were part of the Holocaust machinery, showing that knowledge is not virtue, and often science and technology have been put at the service of evil. It is only a culture of life and an ethic of love that can rescue us from the senseless violence that inflicts so much suffering on our society.

Like Christ our Good Shepherd, we who aspire to be Jesus’ disciples and to follow His way of life, we too must work to gather the scattered, to draw people into Christ’s community. It is in His Gospel that we find the answers to the questions of life and the challenging ideals that are part of discipleship; mercy, forgiveness, self sacrifice, service, justice and truth.

John Lennon once said, ‘Everything will be OK in the end. If it’s not OK, it’s not the end.’ Our faith goes beyond that optimism. Love is stronger than death. We are going to live forever in the Resurrection Christ won for us on the Cross. The innocent victims who perished this week; Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Officer Sean Collier, will live in eternity. Life is not ended, merely changed – that is the message of Easter. As Martin Luther King expressed, ‘Death is a comma, not a period at the end of a sentence.’

Although the culture of death looms large, our Good Shepherd rose from the grave on Easter and His light can expel the darkness and illuminate for us a path that leads to life, to a civilization of solidarity and love. I hope that the events of this past week have taught us how high the stakes are. We must build a civilization of love, or there will be no civilization at all.

 

Text of President Obama’s Address:

 

Hello, Boston! 

Scripture tells us to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.”  Run with endurance the race that is set before us. 

On Monday morning, the sun rose over Boston.  The sunlight glistened off the Statehouse dome.  In the Common and the Public Garden, spring was in bloom.  On this Patriot’s Day, like so many before, fans jumped onto the T to see the Sox at Fenway.  In Hopkinton, runners laced up their shoes and set out on a 26.2-mile test of dedication and grit and the human spirit.  And across this city, hundreds of thousands of Bostonians lined the streets — to hand the runners cups of water and to cheer them on.

It was a beautiful day to be in Boston — a day that explains why a poet once wrote that this town is not just a capital, not just a place.  Boston, he said, “is the perfect state of grace.” 

And then, in an instant, the day’s beauty was shattered.  A celebration became a tragedy.  And so we come together to pray, and mourn, and measure our loss.   But we also come together today to reclaim that state of grace — to reaffirm that the spirit of this city is undaunted, and the spirit of this country shall remain undimmed.

To Governor Patrick; Mayor Menino; Cardinal O’Malley and all the faith leaders who are here; Governors Romney, Swift, Weld and Dukakis; members of Congress; and most of all, the people of Boston and the families who’ve lost a piece of your heart.  We thank you for your leadership.  We thank you for your courage.  We thank you for your grace. 

I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message:  Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city.  Every one of us stands with you. 

Because, after all, it’s our beloved city, too.  Boston may be your hometown, but we claim it, too.  It’s one of America’s iconic cities.  It’s one of the world’s great cities.  And one of the reasons the world knows Boston so well is that Boston opens its heart to the world.

Over successive generations, you’ve welcomed again and again new arrivals to our shores — immigrants who constantly reinvigorated this city and this commonwealth and our nation.  Every fall, you welcome students from all across America and all across the globe, and every spring you graduate them back into the world — a Boston diaspora that excels in every field of human endeavor.  Year after year, you welcome the greatest talents in the arts and science, research — you welcome them to your concert halls and your hospitals and your laboratories to exchange ideas and insights that draw this world together. 

And every third Monday in April, you welcome people from all around the world to the Hub for friendship and fellowship and healthy competition — a gathering of men and women of every race and every religion, every shape and every size; a multitude represented by all those flags that flew over the finish line.

Slide1

So whether folks come here to Boston for just a day, or they stay here for years, they leave with a piece of this town tucked firmly into their hearts.  So Boston is your hometown, but we claim it a little bit, too

I know this because there’s a piece of Boston in me.  You welcomed me as a young law student across the river; welcomed Michelle, too.  You welcomed me during a convention when I was still a state senator and very few people could pronounce my name right.

Like you, Michelle and I have walked these streets.  Like you, we know these neighborhoods.  And like you, in this moment of grief, we join you in saying — “Boston, you’re my home.”  For millions of us, what happened on Monday is personal.  It’s personal.

Today our prayers are with the Campbell family of Medford.  They’re here today.  Their daughter, Krystle, was always smiling. Those who knew her said that with her red hair and her freckles and her ever-eager willingness to speak her mind, she was beautiful, sometimes she could be a little noisy, and everybody loved her for it.  She would have turned 30 next month.  As her mother said through her tears, “This doesn’t make any sense.” 

Our prayers are with the Lu family of China, who sent their daughter, Lingzi, to BU so that she could experience all this city has to offer.  She was a 23-year-old student, far from home. And in the heartache of her family and friends on both sides of a great ocean, we’re reminded of the humanity that we all share.

Our prayers are with the Richard family of Dorchester — to Denise and their young daughter, Jane, as they fight to recover. And our hearts are broken for 8-year-old Martin — with his big smile and bright eyes.  His last hours were as perfect as an 8-year-old boy could hope for — with his family, eating ice cream at a sporting event.  And we’re left with two enduring images of this little boy — forever smiling for his beloved Bruins, and forever expressing a wish he made on a blue poster board:  “No more hurting people.  Peace.”  

No more hurting people.  Peace.

Our prayers are with the injured -— so many wounded, some gravely.  From their beds, some are surely watching us gather here today.  And if you are, know this:  As you begin this long journey of recovery, your city is with you.  Your commonwealth is with you.  Your country is with you.  We will all be with you as you learn to stand and walk and, yes, run again.  Of that I have no doubt.  You will run again. You will run again.

Because that’s what the people of Boston are made of.  Your resolve is the greatest rebuke to whoever committed this heinous act.  If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorize us, to shake us from those values that Deval described, the values that make us who we are, as Americans — well, it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it.  Not here in Boston.  Not here in Boston.

You’ve shown us, Boston, that in the face of evil, Americans will lift up what’s good.  In the face of cruelty, we will choose compassion.  In the face of those who would visit death upon innocents, we will choose to save and to comfort and to heal.  We’ll choose friendship.  We’ll choose love. 

Scripture teaches us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.”  And that’s the spirit you’ve displayed in recent days. 

When doctors and nurses, police and firefighters and EMTs and Guardsmen run towards explosions to treat the wounded — that’s discipline. 

When exhausted runners, including our troops and veterans — who never expected to see such carnage on the streets back home  — become first responders themselves, tending to the injured — that’s real power. 

When Bostonians carry victims in their arms, deliver water and blankets, line up to give blood, open their homes to total strangers, give them rides back to reunite with their families — that’s love.

That’s the message we send to those who carried this out and anyone who would do harm to our people.  Yes, we will find you.  And, yes, you will face justice.   We will find you. We will hold you accountable.  But more than that; our fidelity to our way of life — to our free and open society — will only grow stronger.  For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but one of power and love and self-discipline.

Like Bill Iffrig, 78 years old — the runner in the orange tank top who we all saw get knocked down by the blast — we may be momentarily knocked off our feet, but we’ll pick ourselves up. We’ll keep going.  We will finish the race.  In the words of Dick Hoyt, who’s pushed his disabled son, Rick, in 31 Boston Marathons — “We can’t let something like this stop us.”  This doesn’t stop us. 

And that’s what you’ve taught us, Boston.  That’s what you’ve reminded us — to push on.  To persevere.  To not grow weary.  To not get faint.  Even when it hurts.  Even when our heart aches.  We summon the strength that maybe we didn’t even know we had, and we carry on.  We finish the race.  We finish the race.  

And we do that because of who we are.  And we do that because we know that somewhere around the bend a stranger has a cup of water.  Around the bend, somebody is there to boost our spirits.  On that toughest mile, just when we think that we’ve hit a wall, someone will be there to cheer us on and pick us up if we fall.  We know that. 

And that’s what the perpetrators of such senseless violence — these small, stunted individuals who would destroy instead of build, and think somehow that makes them important — that’s what they don’t understand.  Our faith in each other, our love for each other, our love for country, our common creed that cuts across whatever superficial differences there may be — that is our power.  That’s our strength. 

That’s why a bomb can’t beat us.  That’s why we don’t hunker down.  That’s why we don’t cower in fear.  We carry on.  We race. We strive.  We build, and we work, and we love — and we raise our kids to do the same.  And we come together to celebrate life, and to walk our cities, and to cheer for our teams.  When the Sox and Celtics and Patriots or Bruins are champions again — to the chagrin of New York and Chicago fans — the crowds will gather and watch a parade go down Boylston Street. 

And this time next year, on the third Monday in April, the world will return to this great American city to run harder than ever, and to cheer even louder, for the 118th Boston Marathon.  Bet on it.   

Tomorrow, the sun will rise over Boston.  Tomorrow, the sun will rise over this country that we love.  This special place.  This state of grace.

Scripture tells us to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.”  As we do, may God hold close those who’ve been taken from us too soon.  May He comfort their families.  And may He continue to watch over these United States of America.

 

Additional Details on the Interfaith Service

A more detailed description of the Holy Cross Cathedral interfaith service can be found in the National Catholic Register:

Slide1

 

 

Roe v. Wade Turns 40

.

Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion,
was issued on January 22, 1973.

This January 22, 2013, will commemorate
the 40th anniversary of that Supreme Court decision.

.

To date, 55 million infants have been aborted in the United States, and are missing from our ranks as a nation.
55 million of us were not born, were not baptized, did not graduate, did not marry, did not have children, and did not contribute to the world in all areas, including philosophy, science, art, and religion.
At least one out of 6 Americans is missing.  If these children, who would now be 40, also had children, as many as one quarter of all Americans could be missing by now.

.

.

One person who escaped abortion very narrowly, yet lived to contribute mind-boggling contributions to our society’s present capabilities, was Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple.  What would our world be now, without Steve Jobs?

.

.

.
President Obama is another example of a person who might have been aborted, if Roe v. Wade had been legal at the time he was born.  As the black child of a single mother,  his chances of being aborted would have been extremely high. 77% of African-American pregnancies are aborted right now, a black child is 5 times as likely to be aborted as a white child.
Numerous potential Presidents may have been aborted in these past forty years.

Abortion is one of the biggest killers of history, and abortion is a much bigger deal than most people think.

.

 

A Striking Coincidence

President Barack Hussein Obama,
the most radically pro-abortion President in United States history,
will be re-inaugurated on January 21, 2013,
the eve of the 40th anniversary,
of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

.

The Significance of the number 40 for Christians

The number 40 is a very meaningful number in Judeo Christian history.

  • During the Old Testament great flood, rain fell for forty nights and forty days, during which all living beings on earth perished, except those on Noah’s ark.
  • Spies explored the land of Israel for forty days (Numbers 13).
  • The Old Testament Exodus from Egypt lasted 40 years, with the Jewish people wandering the Sinai desert. This period of years represents the time it takes for a new generation to arise.
  • Moses’ life is divided into 40 year segments in the Old Testament.
  • Eli, Saul, David, and Solomon, Jewish leaders and kings of the Old Testament, ruled for forty years.
  • Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for forty days before David defeated him.
  • Moses spend three consecutive periods of forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai.
  • 40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin.
  • Christ fasted and prayed in the desert for 40 days prior to His Temptation, Ministry, Passion, Death and Resurrection.
  • Forty days was the period from the Resurrection of Jesus to His Ascension into Heaven.
  • Lent consists of the forty days preceding Easter.

Madison Will Commemorate 40 Years with Prayer

Madison will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 12, 2013, by praying the rosary on the steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol. This event is sponsored by Pro-Life Wisconsin, Vigil for Life Madison, and the Diocese of Madison.
Details can be found in the flyer pictured below and the PDF flyer here.

January 12th, 2013
11AM at the State Street Steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol
Madison’s Capitol Square
Put It on Your Calendar
Come and Join Us!

.

……

Akin and the Media’s Double Standard:

Todd Akin

(Post Script added below on 8-24-12)

-Double Standard on criticizing  conservatives but not liberals
-Double Standard on defining “choice” as only one choice
-Double Standard on defining women’s rights and women’s opinions

What a double standard exercised by the mainstream press!

Criticising Conservatives But Not Liberals

Yet Rep. Todd Akin, not even a medical expert, is being attacked for believing that the violent nature of rape might prevent conception, a concept suggested by medical doctors online! Duh, maybe the stress of a rape might affect the outcome; after all, stress is one of the leading causes of infertility in 2012.  People, including members of his own party, are demanding that Akin drop out of the Missouri Senate race as a result of stating this medical opinion.

Liberals are just looking for any dirty tactic to knock out contenders for Senate seats. Why don’t they clean up their own act first?  And why are Republicans so quick to join in and go on the defensive?

True Pro-Choice

True choice would let a woman be rewarded equally for choosing life.  If the government doesn’t contribute towards raising children, why should it contribute towards destroying them?

Women’s Rights and Women’s Votes

The squeaky wheel minority who just doesn't get the point.

Liberals might also stop claiming women’s votes and fabricating the non-existant “War on Women.”  It is unwarranted to imply that Democrats represent women’s interests better than Republicans do. Actually, conservatism outweighs liberalism in both genders – Gallup poll. More than half of all women are conservatives, yet the liberals lie, and claim to represent their interests.  Liberals claim that conservatives, the group favored by both women and men, is declaring a war on women.  How can anybody take them seriously?

Moreover, 2/3 of America (including women) opposes federal funding of abortion, yet liberals ignore that.

Republicans should focus on how liberals LIE, and how they are ANTIi-democracy and ANTI-choice, rather than rushing to cooperate with liberals in picking off conservatives one by one for errors that they make.

What Women Want- Media and Liberals Have it Wrong

Most women love and want their babies, and don’t appreciate the suggestion that their baby is a burden which should be painfully dismembered and discarded. 64% of women who have abortions were coerced, pressured by others into abortion.  Abortion is the unfair choice.

Liberals brag about providing free $7 birth control pills through ObamaCare mandates, but do nothing to strengthen the family, or to help women keep their babies, which is the BEST way to raise good future citizens. Providing pills thorugh ObamaCare is simply a cheap trick for buying votes, which insults women by presuming their ignorance.

The REAL War on Women

Obama mandating what's good for women

The REAL War on Women is being waged by the Obama Administration and it is waged on a woman’s intelligence.  Obama offers to buy women’s votes, an intellectual prostitution of sorts, and implies that women are so stupid that they will get on board : “You are so stupid that I can purchase your vote for $7 worth of birth control pills per month, and you will not notice that you still have to pay for your own aspirin, food, rent, and everything else.  For $84 per year, I get your vote, and you foolishly believe that I have your bests interests at heart.”

Republicans Should Spend Less Time Reacting to Democrat (Alinsky) Attacks, and Spend More Time Attacking the Dissolute and Illogical Morality  and Bad Policies of the Obama Adminsitration

Post Script:

Republicans Abandoning their Wounded

Today (8-24-12) a CNS News article by Patrick J. Buchanan, A Grand Old Party in Panic, discusses “the great failing of American conservatives is they do not retrieve their wounded.” Apparently, the Family Research Council also came to the defense of Todd Akin.

In addition to the above CNS speculations on whether the GOP is dumping their wounded because they are nervous about the popularity of their social and moral positions, I will suggest that recent in-fighting in the Republican Party may also influence the willingness of some “moderate” Republicans to discard their more staunchly conservative colleagues.  See The Presumptive Nominee, or The Secret Insurrection.

Medical Malpractice

Yesterday (8-23-12) a FOX opinion, written by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, blasted Todd Akin, putting words in his mouth, or rather, attributing thoughts to him, and then proceeded to psychoanalyze him in a most unflattering and unjustified way.  Dr. Ablow actually  suggested that Todd Akin believes that “women consciously or unconsciously wanted to be fertilized by the men they are identifying as their rapists.”

Ablow’s analysis was based on projection and supposition, and not on what Todd Akin had actually said.
Dr. Ablow should lose his medical license over such unprofessional meddling in politics if he does not publish an apology and a retraction.

In actual fact, Todd Akins’ reasoning may have been quite simple:  stress is well known to be one of the major causes of infertility.  Rape clearly produces a phenomenal level of stress.  An online doctor at Christian Life Resources claims that rape rarely produces pregnancy, and analyzes the scientific reasons why this might be true. Whether this analysis is correct or not, Todd Akin cannot be blamed for believing it, or some similar scientific analysis.  Maybe the level of stress and terror in a rape could prevent conception; nobody has the data to indicate either way.

A Double Standard in Defining Rape

Finally, Todd Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” rape distinguishes the rape from a statutory rape, in which, for example, a 17-year-old woman could have willingly participated, yet is legally labeled a rape. Our culture cannot simultaneously allow Planned Parenthood to hand out condoms to 12-year-olds with instructions on their use, then lynch any man who slept with a 17-year-old. What about her 18-year-old boyfriend who has been sleeping with her for 5 years, but now he is 18 and she is 17, and suddenly it’s statutory rape? What about casual college “hook-ups,” in which the 17-year-old freshman (freshwoman) lies about her age?

The term “legitimate” rape also distinguishes rapes from false accusations, which are a possibility in the real world.

This is the United States of America, and no woman should have the power to destroy the career and life of any man of her choice by simply accusing him of rape.
If men are guilty until proven innocent, our democracy and our Constitution are a farce.
Women are not guilty until proven innocent, at least not yet.

 

 

 

 

The Bigotry of the Left

or

Defending Rush Limbaugh

or

Knights in Shining Armor

.

Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke

Rush Limbaugh Called a Woman Names

Rush Limbaugh recently called a one woman a slut and prostitute on his radio program.  I happened to be listening to the broadcast at the time, and found his tirade to be “Rush Limbaugh.”   I did not think he meant it literally; he seemed to be doing it for comic effect.

I have never advocated dirty fighting or name-calling, and I make an effort to eliminate such tactics from my own writing.  But in this case, I must rush to Rush Limbaugh’s defense.  Rush Limbaugh’s name-calling was pretty unremarkable, given the 2012 cultural benchmark for salty language set by the likes of Ed Schultz, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, and even local middle school playgrounds in Madison, WI, where I live.

Transcript of Rush’s Offending Statement:

RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

Rush Limbaugh’s Message

Although Rush Limbaugh’s name-calling was not very remarkable, his main message preceding the comical name-calling tirade was remarkable.   The point that sexually over-active people are not making wise choices and that there is no reason the rest of us should be paying for their questionable recreational sexual activities, which we do not ourselves approve of or participate in, is a good one.  Rush’s passionate defense of traditional morality, under which people who behave promiscuously are regarded as sources of moral and medical risk, Rush’s defense of a morality which 70% of America supports, warmed my heart.  This man’s courage in stating the truth with some passion made him a knight in shining armor in my book.

Crucifixion by the Left

But the left, assisted by the (left-dominated) media, completely ignored the logical analysis Rush Limbaugh provided of government-guaranteed, free-of-charge, free-of-consequence government-encouraged and public school-taught sexual experimentation, which will only destroy our society if permitted to proceed. continue reading…

Wisconsin State Capitol

.

UPDATE: View the November 16, 2011 Assembly Committee on Education hearing HERE.

UPDATE: Notice has just gone out on November 9, 2011, that the Assembly Committee on Education will be hearing testimony on SB 237 on November 16, 2011. In the Assembly, the bill will be called  Assembly Bill 337, AB 337) .  It is not yet clear when the Assembly will be voting on this sex ed bill which was passed by the Senate.

..

SB 237 Passed in the Senate

Wisconsin’s Senate Bill 237 (SB 237), the Strong Communities and Healthy Kids Act, was passed by Wisconsin’s Senate on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011.
The bill was passed by a narrow margin, with 17 Republicans voting for SB 237 and 16 Democrats voting against.

The purpose of the bill was to reverse the very liberal “Healthy Youth Act” passed in 2010, which required a uniform sex ed program across all of Wisconsin (designed by Planned Parenthood) which underplayed abstinence and required the teaching graphic of sexual material to young children.
SB 237 still allows liberal communities to continue teaching the permissive and graphic material, but no longer requires ALL Wisconsin communities to teach this material.  Under SB 237, each community is permitted to create its own standards, but must teach that abstinence is the only completely reliable preventative for STDs and pregnancy.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) cites abstinence as the only completely reliable preventative for STDs and for pregnancy.

.

What do Americans and Wisconsinites want?

In the U.S., 26 States have CONSERVATIVE sex ed laws, similar to SB 237, requiring that abstinence be taught in sex ed programs as the favored means of avoiding pregnancy and STDs.  Conversely, 13 States have LIBERAL sex ed laws, similar to last year’s HYA in Wisconsin, which require the graphic teaching of “barrier methods,” such as condom demonstration, in the classroom.  Opponents of the liberal Healthy Youth Act call it the “Un-Healthy Youth Act,” or the “Promoting Promiscuity Act,” because it does not permit emphasizing that abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  Under HYA, stating the superiority of abstinence would constitute showing bias against sexually active students.

  • So two thirds of States with sex ed laws have conservative laws.
  • Two thirds of American parents and teens favor abstinence before marriage, according to a U.S. Health and Human Services study released by the Obama administration in 2010.
  • Wisconsin, previously more liberal, shifted to a Republican majority in the last election, November, 2010. Recent recall efforts by Democrats failed to upset that conservative majority; hence the creation of SB 237, reflecting more conservative attitudes.  The liberals who have enjoyed a majority in Wisconsin for many years, are very indignant about the shift in power, as evidenced by the March 2011 demonstrations at the Madison Capitol over government employee union privileges, which made national news. continue reading…

Background

Not unexpectedly, there has been some discussion regarding the modification of Madison’s previous Sex Ed bill, the “Healthy Youth Act” (HYA), which was passed before Wisconsin’s transition of power (to Republican) in January 2011.

The “Healthy Youth Act” required that all Sex Ed programs state-wide teach the proper use of contraceptives and barrier methods (i.e. demonstrate condom use in the classroom).  It also failed to provide abstinence training to pupils.  In other words, it favored the more liberal approach, “let’s give up and assume that all kids have sex, and let’s try to equip them with the knowledge on how to reduce the risks.”  Planned Parenthood was selected to create the new Sex Ed program.

Two thirds of America favors abstinence until marriage, so it is not unexpected that when Republicans came into power, some modifications were proposed to the previous bill.  In the absence of abstinence training, if schools provided instruction on the “proper use of contraceptives and barrier methods,” it was feared that the take-home message could easily be the condoning  of promiscuity and early sexual experimentation. continue reading…

A Bad Samaritan?

How many unwed pregnant mothers has Annie Laurie Gaylor helped?

Just a Few of the Many Mothers and Babies Saved by CareNet

.Most recently, Gaylor condemns the good Samaritan Care Net, which does help unwed pregnant mothers– a need Gaylor herself apparently does not realize is important in our society.

.

Gaylor and the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) not only abandon unwed mothers, but want the government to take sides on the abortion question– THEIR side.  And Isthmus is facilitating.

Isthmus just featured Gaylor’s (and FFRF’s) opposition to a Wisconsin government website listing of the Christian pregnancy care center (Care Net) under family resources.

In the article, Isthmus quotes Gaylor extensively, yet fails to cover the opposing view.  Isthmus also facilitates Gaylor’s misportrayal of the faith based Care Net as incompetent and unsafe, without any facts to support this claim.

Bucky Badger leads Hundreds of Care Net Supporters in Walk for Life

Care Net is actually very competent, very safe, and is supported by numerous groups in Madison, including religious ones.  It is one of Madison’s proudest inter-faith endeavors, with a proud history of helping unfortunate women to take charge of rebuilding their lives.  Our family has been involved in fundraising for CareNet over the years, and participating organizations have included numerous area Christian churches (including our Catholic church), the Princeton Club, Oscar Mayer, the Mallards, Relevant Radio Madison, Bucky Badger and Oremus Catholic Rock, to name just a few.

America is split on the issue of abortion– is abortion a fundamental women’s right, or is it the murder of a human being? The truth cannot be both ways. Although Supreme Court Justices may have ruled for abortion, our society is still strongly divided, and the laws are not even consistant.  A murderer who kills a pregnant woman is legally guilty of two murders, yet if that woman were on her way to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, apparently for her, this would not constitute murder at present. continue reading…

More participants at "Walkerville" today, ~ 300

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Collective Bargaining Law
or

“My ears are still ringing!”

Yesterday, prior to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s approval of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law, the unions did muster up a bit more activity in fizzled-out “Walkerville,” attracting about 300 demonstrators, primarily members of various unions.

I visited the Capitol at noon to document events, and was subjected by a liberal enthusiast to an air-horn blowing repeatedly 12 inches from my ear, presumably to punish me for interviewing some Walker supporters, which is what I was doing at the time.

Air Horn

A slide show follows below,  images from  Capitol Square yesterday afternoon.  About 300 demonstrators were there, numerous unions were represented, and there were lots of noisemakers – vuvuzelas, plastic buckets, air horns, and chanting – as soon as members of the press appeared.

My air-horn toting friend retreats

My air-horn toting friend was surprised by my reaction to his air horn; rather than being unpleasant, grabbing his air-horn, or cursing him, this grey old lady picked up my camera and started clicking away at him.  First, he turned his face away from the camera, but continued honking in my ear.  As I continued clicking away with the camera, he eventually backed away and went somewhere else to torture another victim.

His lack of civility was typical of liberal behavior in Madison in recent months.

The Governor Walker supporters pointed out to me that yesterday was Flag Day .  Their sign read “Raise your flag for Gov. Walker,” and they were waving little 12-inch American flags.  The group included a public school teacher who was opposing her union’s actions, a retired nurse, and a retired U.S. Marine.  They had driven in from an outlying town to show some support for Governor Walker.  Theirs were the only flags visible on Flag Day.

Governor Walker supporters- teacher, nurse, Marine

One Walker supporter my age told me that she was approached by a man sputtering at her, informing her that he comes to these events to punch the teeth out of the bodies of fat people like her.  She didn’t even look fat, but looked very pleasant, ladylike and motherly, sitting quietly on the edge of a concrete wall and waving her American flag.  She had come to support Governor Walker, stating that we must first stop the fiscal bleed going on in our State; later there would be time for civil discourse regarding the details of union contracts.

MC: young man in pink

Announcers were on the Capitol steps behind us, calling for people to approach the Capitol doors to demand entrance inside.  I did not see anyone responding.  The announcer was a young man dressed in a filmy pink dress, signifying I have no idea what – Planned Parenthood again? Just looking for attention?  Not sure whether he made a good spokesman for his cause.

.

Slide Show of Capitol Square on Flag Day, June 14, 2011:

The Supreme Court upheld limitation of collective bargaining law on the same day.

  • Walkerville from State Street

    Walkerville from State Street

    "Walkerville" from State Street

  • State Street 6-14-11- not too crowded

    State Street 6-14-11- not too crowded

    State Street 6-14-11

  • Walkerville Information tent -6-14-11

    Walkerville Information tent -6-14-11

    "Walkerville" Information tent -6-14-11

  • Walkerville- noon, June 14, 2011 ~ 300 demonstrators

    Walkerville- noon, June 14, 2011 ~ 300 demonstrators

    Walkerville-" noon, June 14, 2011 ~ 300 demonstrators

  • Union members- MTI

    Union members- MTI

    Union members- MTI

  • Governor Walker supporters

    Governor Walker supporters

    Governor Walker supporters

  • Calling a Walker a Nazi?

    Calling a Walker a Nazi?

    Calling a Walker a Nazi?

  • Raise your flag for Governor Walker

    Raise your flag for Governor Walker

    Raise your flag for Governor Walker

  • WSP Local, 3732

    WSP Local, 3732

    WSP Local, 3732

  • Steelworkers Union

    Steelworkers Union

    Steelworkers Union

  • American flags on Flag Day

    American flags on Flag Day

    American flags on Flag Day

  • Reporters arrive, liberal protesters come to life

    Reporters arrive, liberal protesters come to life

    Reporters arrive, liberal protesters come to life

  • My horn-toting friend turns away after I start snapping photos of him

    My horn-toting friend turns away after I start snapping photos of him

    My horn-toting friend turns away

  • Time to go elsewhere

    Time to go elsewhere

    Time to go elsewhere

  • I\'m outta here!  Have to find a different old lady to harrass.

    I'm outta here! Have to find a different old lady to harrass.

    I'm outta here! Have to find a different old lady to harrass!

  • Shouting slogans

    Shouting slogans

    Shouting slogans

  • Pink-enrobed young man - the MC

    Pink-enrobed young man - the MC

    Pink-enrobed young man - the MC

  • MC calling demonstrators to demand entrance to the Capitol

    MC calling demonstrators to demand entrance to the Capitol

    MC calling demonstrators to demand entrance to the Capitol

  • Flag Day at the Capitol, June 14, 2011

    Flag Day at the Capitol, June 14, 2011

    Flag Day at the Capitol, June 14, 2011

  • Walkerville-  Rude signs

    Walkerville- Rude signs

    "Walkerville-" Rude signs

More on Flag Day (June 14, 2011) at Madison’s Capitol Square:

.

All Posts