Presidential Nominees -Who Gets to Choose Them?

or

What’s a Delegate to Do?

Note: This article was inspired by the work of Curly Haugland on Republican Presidential Candidate selection at Will Republicans Have a Primary Or A Convention, And Who Gets To Decide?

The Problem- “Binding” of Votes

There has been much controversy in recent years over the question of “binding” Republican delegates in presidential primaries and conventions.

What is a delegate?  A delegate is a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.

Binding is a policy that does not allow delegates at a presidential convention to follow their own judgment or to insist on the party platform when voting for a candidate at the convention, but obliges them to vote only for the candidates who were selected in the primary or caucus selection of candidates in their state months previous to the Republican Convention.

So the question becomes how can a delegate best act for or represent others in the Republican convention?  Does a delegate represent other Republicans better when the delegate is “bound” to vote for a particular individual, or does the delegate represent other Republicans better when he/she is free to use their own judgement, as other elected officials, like Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress do?

In the Republican Party, binding was forbidden by RNC rules since 1923, and delegates have had the freedom to use personal judgment.
But attempts have been made in recent years to introduce binding into RNC rules, with a great deal of confusion resulting.

Pros and Cons

Those who advocate binding say binding is democratic, represents the will of the people, and should not be overturned at the convention by delegates who do not wish to be bound by the popular vote.
Political donors promote binding because their investments in candidates at the primary level could be wiped out by unexpected votes at the convention if delegates were not bound after the primary.

Those who oppose binding and advocate freedom of conscience for delegates say that outsiders, who are permitted to vote in Republican primaries in 24 States now, have no right to hijack the party at the primaries for an agenda that may even be at odds with the party platform.

These issues become particularly important as we approach the 2016 Presidential Election, which has been labeled the most unique, yet pivotal, nomination process in the entire history of the Republican Party.

Some Crucial Background on Ballot Access

Who is right?
Pro-binding or anti-binding advocates?
What are the rules?

If we start with the question “What are the rules governing nominations for President in the United States?” it helps to understanding the modern dilemma on “binding” of delegates.

Ballotpedia, a respected impartial political news source, explains the ballot access process for presidential candidates:

According to Ballotpedia, there are three ways that a person can get on the ballot for President:

• The individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Political parties are private organizations in which like-minded individuals with similar goals have banded together to sponsor a nominee for president who upholds their organization’s priorities and agenda or platform.

• They can get on the ballot for President independently. This involves petitioning each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. Each petition involves complex procedures designed by State lawmakers to prevent non-serious candidates from appearing on the ballot. In 2016, it would also involve the collection of more than 900,000 signatures in support of that candidate.

• The person can run as a write-in candidate. In most states, this involves filing some paperwork in advance of the election. And, of course, it involves persuading millions of people to write the candidate’s name in on the ballot during the general election.

What’s the Easiest Way for a Person to Run for President?

It is pretty clear that the first option, getting a party to nominate you for president, is easier than the other two options. In the first option, the party does much of the work for the candidate. The party offers the unique ability to effectively organize and mobilize voters. The party also contributes a history, a reputation and loyal members who will vote for the candidate.

Two such major parties have dominated the political landscape in the United States for over a hundred years- Democratic and Republican parties. These parties not only help candidates, but they also help voters. Once voters have identified a party whose platform they approve, they do not have to repeat the hard work of gauging each presidential candidate individually on each issue and deciding which one to back for each election. The party they support and trust does this evaluation for them.

Political Warfare

In the past, it seemed honest common sense that only individuals who support a party platform would consider running under the umbrella of that party.

The idea that someone who disagrees with the party platform would try to use that party to get elected would clearly represent a form of dishonesty, even of hijacking.
However today, attempts to hijack political parties occur.

Why Would Anyone Want to Hijack a Party?

Someone may want to hijack a political party for a number of reasons.

The reasons include circumventing the tedious application process to numerous individual States, avoiding the collection of nearly a million signatures, and the attractive nature of jumping on a wagon that is already well under way and is well stocked.  A deceitful person could even see hijacking of the opposition party as an opportunity to weaken the opposition party from the inside.

Click Image to Enlarge

The Republican Party’s major opponent, the Democrat Party, has unfortunately demonstrated numerous times their willingness to use an unethical set of tactics called Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Hillary Clinton wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky’s philosophy and was offered a job to work with him in 1968.  Barak Obama taught Alinksy Tactics while he was a professor.  Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Lucifer (Satan, the Father of Lies) and promotes the use of any immoral tactics to achieve one’s goals. The behavior of both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton  during the past 8 years has illustrated time and again the devious unethical tactics used routinely by the Democrat Party.

Democrats seem to be riddled with unscrupulous agendas much more so than other groups of Americans or than Republicans. As an aside, you could read about the circus that went on in Madison, Wisconsin when Democrats decided to recall Republican Governor Walker because they did not like legislation that Republicans were enacting in Wisconsin.  I had a front-row seat at that circus, and reported on many unscrupulous behind-the scenes events, including shocking events involving State Supreme Court Judges at the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.  Events such as these make President Nixon’s Watergate seem like naughty child’s play, but the media does not even attempt to hold Democrats accountable for their unethical behavior in 2016, and amateur bloggers like me have to do the work of the media.

Dealing With Reality

So reality dictates today that we have to deal with individuals who present themselves to a political party for nomination, while disagreeing with a major portion of that party’s political platform or agenda. The party has to watch out for hijackers, or Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep’s clothing- both among the candidates, and among primary voters.

This is where the supervision of trusted, elected party delegates who have earned the trust of the party through demonstrated volunteer service comes in, helping to identify and eliminate impostors and hijackers. Delegates have been entrusted the job of being the guardian angels of the party’s ethics and of the party’s platform.

Hijacking can occur not only at the candidate level, but at the primary voter level as well. Twenty-four states now allow the general public to vote in primaries for nominees of other parties. So when Democrats and Independents and undeclared voters are permitted to choose the Republican Party’s nominee, clearly the Republican Party no longer has control over its own organization. There is even the potential for organized busloads of opponents, sometimes without proper identification, to vote numerous times in primaries in order to sabotage their opponents’ candidate selection.

Isn’t That a Bit Paranoid?

Unfortunately, the scenarios described above are not imagined, but have already surfaced at the Iowa caucuses in this 2016 election.

Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders has accused his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton of infiltrating the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers.  A pretty serious accusation, considering that Hillary won the Iowa Caucuses by only 0.29%.

Equivalently shocking, there is video documentary published February 10, 2016, of Out of State Voters and Non-Residents Offered Ballots in New Hampshire Presidential Primary.  So apparently, attempts to hijack the Primaries are in full force today.

Back to Binding Delegates- Democratic or Not?

So the binding of delegates is not a simple democratic procedure as many media sources represent it. In fact, binding of delegates can work against democracy in numerous ways:

• Binding of delegates allows outsiders to help choose the Republican nominee at the Primaries.
• Binding of delegates allows candidates who oppose the Party platform to be nominated.
• Binding of delegates misleads voters into thinking a candidate represents something other than they really represent.
• Binding of delegates does not allow delegates to take into account all the events that transpire in the half year between the primaries and the convention.
• Binding of delegates is unfair to those who have built the Republican Party, which is, after all, a private association with freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to associate with politically like-minded individuals.
• Binding of delegates allows the infiltration of political party by opponents.
• Binding encourages money-driven nominations rather than idea-driven or character-driven nominations.
• Binding of delegates has never been permitted by the Rules of the Republican Party.

The above points illustrate that it can very reasonably be argued that the binding of delegates is NOT democratic, but subverts the democratic process and facilitates the hijacking of half of America’s votes.

Hijacking Not Allowed

If a person does not agree with a particular party’s platform, they should not be allowed to represent that party, or to change that party by such devious means.

An outsider cannot join your off-road jeep club and insist that you switch your club’s agenda to knitting.
Your neighbors, no matter how many of them get together and agree, cannot hijack your car from your garage because they do not own it.

But Didn’t the RNC Introduced Binding, and Isn’t Binding Binding?

So why are so many under the impression that binding was introduced into RNC rules by amendment, and that binding is now obligatory?

The problem is that recent political warfare has included numerous attempts by progressives to alter the political agenda of the Republican Party with amendments and to divert its candidates.
These attempts have been fraudulent, and they cause internal contradictions in the RNC rules, which by definition (governed by Robert’s Rules of Order) nullify the contradictory progressive amendments.

Did You Just Say Progressives in the Republican Party?

Yes, there actually are progressives in the Republican Party.
Let’s clarify something about progressives at this point. Etymologically speaking, one would think that progressives were people who represented progress in society.

Yet today’s progressive has wishfully and somewhat narcissistically labeled his or her own fast-paced, radical social and economic experimentation, which most often ends in economic failure and social disaster, as progressive. Not only have they prematurely declared their experiments to represent progress, but they have also tried to dictate that all others follow their foolhardy misguided example.

One example of misguided progessivism is Michelle Obama’s suggestion last year that discarded school lunches be used to fuel cars.  The idea sounds great on the surface- let’s not let anything go to waste!- but when you do the calculations of what it would cost to transform school lunches into fuel for cars, the fuel would end up costing $280 per gallon.

Today’s impulsive and unwise progressive is more aptly named a regressive.
So let’s get to some of the regressive, fraudulent and invalid amendments they tried to introduce into the RNC rules.

 Regressive Attempts to Amend RNC Rules

According to Curly Haugland, National Committeeman from the North Dakota Republican State Committee, and member of the RNC Rules Committee, for the past 90 years RNC rules have prohibited the binding of Republican delegates.  RNC rules continue to protect the right of each delegate to The Republican National Convention to vote their personal choice on issues coming before the convention, and for the candidate of their choice to receive the party’s nomination.

The Rules of the Republican Party  can be changed via prescribed procedures, but changes can occur only once every four years, on the eve of the Republican Convention.  Once the rules are established, the convention proceeds according to those rules, and no further changes can be made until the eve of the next convention four years later.

There have been attempts by regressives to change the rules in recent years, and today, the RNC rules actually do state that binding of delegates can occur (Rule 16).  But Curly Haugland points out that the binding language was introduced illegitimately by deceit and by trickery, by staff who did not have the authority to change the rules, and furthermore, that the attempted binding rule is actually contradicted by other RNC rules which are still on the books (e.g. Rules 37 and 38).  Contradictions are governed by Roberts Rules of Order, which state that any motion that conflicts with other existing rules is null and void.

So despite the fact that binding has been introduced into the RNC Rules, binding is actually null and void.
Binding is not binding.

All-Out War

The struggle between proponents of binding and those defending their rights to vote their conscience led to a serious clash in 2012.

Over 400 Republican delegates filed a Federal lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and Reince Priebus the Chairman, alleging that violence and intimidation were used against delegates in an effort to control how they voted.  These delegates refused to be bound and insisted on their right to vote their conscience.

Despite the fact that the court ordered the dispute to be settled via Alternative Dispute Resolution, the exhibits included in the complaint included a copy of a legal opinion offered by Jennifer Sheehan, Associate Counsel to the Republican National Committee, which clearly states that Delegates are allowed to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether that person is officially placed into nomination.

Regressive Rules Can Boomerang

We’ve already mentioned the boomerang path some “progressive” ideas take, like Michelle Obama’s attempt to force children to eat food they don’t like, then to turn their discarded lunches into $280 per gallon fuel for cars.

The thing is, most progressive regressive ideas fail, and come back to bite the people who initiated them.  Any good scientist will tell you that most experiments fail, and it is the failed experiments that ultimately lead you toward figuring out what really  does work.

And regressive rule changes in the RNC rules are no exception- they boomerang and come back to bite you.

Changing MORE Rules

Presidential candidates (like Mitt Romney) who are powerful enough to influence the appointment of delegates in the Republican Party, can get their delegates to introduce changes into the RNC rules on the eve of the convention once every 4 years.  And guess what they try to introduce?  Rules which favor that candidate.  And so, on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Republican convention, more rules were changed.

Previous to 2012, in order to go on to the convention, a candidate had to win a plurality of votes in the primaries of 5 states; that is, to receive more votes in 5 states than any of his/her competitors did.  But on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Convention, this rule (Rule 40) was changed, in order to make Mitt Romney the Presumptive Nominee and to prevent Ron Paul, who had received a plurality of votes in 5 states, from challenging Mitt Romney.  The bar was raised to require a majority of votes (more than 50% instead of just the highest number) in 8 states (instead of in 5 states). This rule change made on the eve of the 2012 Convention succeeded in excluding Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney went on to become the Republican nominee.

Here Comes the Boomerang!

Well, here we are now in 2016.

The 2016 Republican field is much larger and more competitive than 2012, so the majority (50%) that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul got in 2012 is much harder to get.
We have a veritable flock of great candidates coming up on stage.  So much so that they cannot even fit onto one stage, and Republican debates are split into two sessions.
At the rate things are going, even the front runners do not seem capable of getting 50% of the vote, because the vote is spread over so many candidates.

What will happen?
The very rules that helped Mitt Romney are now getting in the way of many candidates.
So, there will be no “Presumptive Nominee.”

Many candidates may get to the convention, and rule changes are being planned for the eve of the July 1016 Convention.
As a result, this year, the candidate selection process may occur at the convention, and not at the primaries.
Candidates who do not have a majority of delegates are being encouraged to “go the distance” to Cleveland and not to drop out. 
Delegates are being encouraged to vote their conscience, and to select a nominee who represents the Party Platform.

When delegates do not feel “bound,”  the handlers and influence peddlers will lose control over the convention.  The convention will be in the hands of the delegates of the Republican party.
So what worked for progressives in 2012 in getting a much more liberal candidate (Mitt Romney) ushered into the Republican Party, may work against the present most liberal candidate, Donald Trump.
Donald Trumps’s hopes of being the Presumptive Nominee may have been sabotaged by the rule change in 2012 that was designed to help liberal candidates like Mitt Romney, and presumably Donald Trump.
The boomerang has returned.

Anybody Placing Bets?

So who’s placing bets on the mad dash to change the rules again on the eve of this 2016 Cleveland Republican Convention?
Will the rules be changed?
Will there be a repetition of delegate intimidation?
Will Reince Priebus and the National Republican Committee behave and let democracy work, particularly since they were forced to recognize the delegates’ right to conscience after the lawsuit in 2012?
Some have even speculated that this convention could yield wild surprises, such as the nomination of people who had not even declared themselves as candidates for nomination, like Sarah Palin.

What We Need

What we need at this point is patriotism, courage, strength of character and prayer.
This is an opportunity for Americans to take back the Republican Party, to behave in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the Republican Party Platform, which supports the Constitution.
We need power to be returned to the delegates as it was originally designed and intended.
And that power will not return by itself. It has to be taken by courageous men and women.
At the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland.

So What’s a Delegate to Do?

• A Delegate is to act like a patriot.
• A delegate is to help take back America, so that this Judeo-Christian democratic republic can continue to thrive and succeed and does not turn into a regressive experimental Godless socialist state which is the trajectory that Obama and the Democrat Party are following.
• A delegate is to choose candidates of upstanding moral character who are pledged to upholding the platform of the Republican Party.
• A delegate really should read the new guide being prepared for Republican Party delegates which is being spearheaded by North Dakota Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland, intended to make all delegates aware of the duties and responsibilities they assume as they fulfill their important role in the governance of the Republican Party. The working title of the guide is “Owner’s Manual for 2016 Republican National Convention Delegates. See RNC Delegates Top Priority:Recruiting Conservatives Into Party’s Precinct Committeemen Ranks.

READ THE GUIDE THAT’s COMING!

Heckling the Rosary

or

Renaming the Wisconsin State Journal

Don’t Diss My Church

One of the prime goals of this cultural values blog is to defend my religion, Catholicism, against the regrettably frequent and unjust attacks we suffer, particularly in Madison, WI.
One of this blog’s first blog categories was “Don’t Diss My Church.”
And in Madison, the Wisconsin State Journal has provided more than it’s fair share of imbalanced reporting on Catholics, frequently fueling my blog.

Why Pray the Rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?

Catholics praying the rosary at Capitol Rosary Rally

Now that the Obama administration has embarked on restricting the religious freedom of Catholics, Madison Catholics have begun praying the rosary on Thursday evenings on the Madison Capitol steps, to beg God’s help in the restoration of religious freedom to our nation. 

Madison’s Rosary Rally gatherings attract 150-300 quiet, polite people each week.  The crowd includes families with small children, young singles, and many grandparents as well.  The Catholics gather quietly after business hours, do not disrupt Capitol business, leave no litter behind, do no shouting, carry no vuvuzelas, whistles or drums, and don’t even carry signs.  They come, they pray for our nation, and they leave quietly, leaving no damage in their wake.

Who Heckles Children Praying the Rosary?

About 3 to 10 ne’er-do-wells have started showing up at these rosary events, attempting to disrupt them. Their tactics include shouting four letter words from across the street, mocking the rosary, carrying rude signs mentioning private body parts, and all the usual aggressive radical left tactics Wisconsin has witnessed at recent teacher union protests, and at Madison Pro-Life rallies (which radicals have routinely tried to disrupt in recent years, and where they have even been known to get up in pulpits at Library Mall and perform strip-tease dances in front of children with literally only God knows what motivation).
Teacher union protest tactics:

.

Is the Wisconsin State Journal Heckling the Rosary?

So, Doug Erickson, the “religion” reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ), instead of covering the story from the perspective of the hundreds of Catholics participating in the Capitol Rosary Rally who represent one quarter of America, covered the story instead from the perspective of the handful of rude hecklers.

Doug chose the headline:

Critics: ‘Rosary rallies’ at Capitol thinly disguised GOP pep fests

Hmmm… GOP “pep-fest?”

Better Headlines not considered by WSJ:

• Catholics Pray for Restoration of Religious Freedom
• Families Pray for the Coming Election
• Family Values Defended in Public Prayer
• Prayer Brought to Madison’s Downtown Capitol
• New Peaceful Standard Set for Disagreeing With Government
• Prayer and Civility Replaces Anger and Rage at Madison’s Capitol
• Contrasting Teacher Union Protests and Capitol Rosary in Madison

I have participated in many of the Rallies, and I can attest to the fact that Doug Erickson’s implication that Rosary Rallies are “pep-fests” could not be further from the truth.

A More Accurate Headline:

Mark Levin exposing Democrat propaganda (click photo for link to audio).

WSJ  Rosary Rally Article- Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda

Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda Headline

The Wisconsin State Journal’s misleading headline was amplified by a factor of 118,000 through its State-wide circulation, and the whole of Wisconsin was misinformed.  Not to mention online readers, or readers of spin-off articles such as those at the LaCrosse Tribune, Yahoo News or the Orlando Sentinel.

The Wisconsin State Journal gave voice to a handful of hecklers and dissidents rather than to hundreds of serious Catholics, who represent the beliefs of 25% of the American population  and 25% of Madison’s population.

Who are These Hecklers Favored by the Wisconsin State Journal?

Rosary Heckler Number One

One individual quoted in Doug Erickson’s article is Craig Spaulding, who presumed to know the motivations of the Catholics and declared the prayer rally to be partisan and to be GOP.
Doug Erickson failed to mention who Craig Spaulding was —  he did not mention that Craig Spaulding is a fringe radical Madison activist who was arrested (more than once) during the teacher’s union protests, who had to be carried out of the Senate gallery by ten officers for violating rules, and who is a member of the anarchist International Workers of the World, which favors “direct action,”  in place of using democratic channels. Craig Spaulding is also involved with Occupy Wisconsin,  participates regularly in the frequent Capitol lunch sing-a-long protests, and used to own the most troublesome drinking establishment on Capitol Square, which was famous for it’s “underwear parties.” It is not clear whether Craig Spaulding is a paid union protester . Craig is listed as a delinquent taxpayer owing over $33,000 in taxes.

Here’s a You Tube showing the Capitol lunch protesters with whom Craig Spaulding participated frequently and which forced Capitol Tour Guides to wear ear plugs; the group whose perspective the Wisconsin State Journal favors over the perspective of Catholics praying the Rosary at the Capitol:

.

Second Rosary Critic

Annie Laurie Gaylor of FFRF at Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, Madison, W

Second Rosary Critic

Another individual quoted by the WSJ article is one of the co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Annie Laurie Gaylor, who personally protested at the Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally last June 8^th, and who made no objections while her husband and co-President of FFRF Dan Barker repeatedly heckled praying children and scandalized them by shouting sexually suggestive remarks addressed to the children.

Dan Barker (FFRF) at Madison’s Freedom From Religion Rally; and what was Dan Barker doing? Shouting rude things at children.

Annie Laurie Gaylor and FFRF are in a minority not only because they are atheists, but particularly because they are a miniscule minority among atheists themselves.  They constitute only 0.1 of 1% of atheists, or one out of a thousand atheists.  That’s right, 999 out of 1,000 atheists, unlike Gaylor and FFRF, are tolerant of 80% Christian America, of 25% Catholic America, and have no problem with our legally established American right to public prayer which President Obama periodically exercises.  Gaylor and her FFRF, whom the Wisconsin State Journal chose to quote in this article, constitute the angry radical fringe, which represents only one out of 33 thousand people, or 0.003 of 1% of the population of America.

Third Rosary Heckler

Another Rosary heckler (not mentioned by the Wisconsin State Journal article) made herself known to me when her braggadocio arrived in my inbox, through an online discussion in which I had participated.  She belatedly joined a discussion which I had previously viewed as a reasonable and constructive conversation with a Madison LGBT activist, and which started when I objected to the activist’s treatment of the first Capitol Rosary Rally and of Bishop Morlino on his blog.

Aside: Since that time, the LGBT activist has begun censoring comments published on his blog, selecting supportive radical comments for publication, and declining to publish further discussion with me.  I guess there are limits to the “Bluebird’s” willingness to discuss truth, after all, particularly when he and his friends start losing the argument.  Turns out, he’s also a regular at the Lunchtime Solidarity Singers at the Capitol, who drive tour guides to wear ear protection.

Back to the third Rosary heckler: her name is Genie Ogden.  Genie bragged in the online discussion that she heckles the Rosary Rally weekly, boos, and sings “Solidarity Forever” at Catholics who are singing hymns.  Genie, like Craig Spaulding, was also a regular member of the Capitol lunchtime “Sing-a-Longs,” the fringe minority who continues to make noise at the Madison Capitol at lunchtime, despite Governor Walker’s re-election by an even larger majority in Wisconsin than he enjoyed in his first election.

Perhaps Genie is looking for new outlets for her anger, now that the recall is over.  The You Tube of “Solidarity” protesters (to which Craig and Genie belonged, the noise of which drove people to wear ear protection) was presented above.

Schoenstatt Sister after the first Capitol Rosary Rally

.

Just over a week ago, Genie Ogden was arrested for demonstrating with signs without a permit at the State Capitol.  She routinely protests with her daughter, who publicly approves lawlessness, such as the pouring of beer on conservative legislator’s heads, or throwing rotten fruit at them.

.

Do these rosary hecklers/solidarity singers really believe that such actions would be persuasive and would bolster their cause?

.

Genie, like Doug Spaulding and FFRF, tried to claim that the Rosary Rallies are political, and that they constitute a violation of separation of Church and State.  What she does not seem to realize is that neither she, nor other liberals, can divine the thoughts of others, and that the mention of Governor Walker and of Paul Ryan once in the course of thirteen Rosary Rallies, in the context of being answers to prayers, reflects a pro-life, not a Republican position.  Democrat Stupak and his 11 Democrat supporters were an equal blessing and an equal answer to prayer when they stood up for the exclusion of abortion from ObamaCare.
The pro-life beliefs of Catholics are not political; they are ethical.

.Rosary Hecklers in General

The Rosary Hecklers and critics above exhibit a bigoted and tyrannical attitude, denying to others the rights that the hecklers enjoy themselves.

Madison Teacher’s Union Protesters

Solidarity union activists like Craig and Genie, and LGBT activists like the Bluebird, reserve the right to use Madison’s Capitol Square for themselves to promote their own (minority) views and social agendas, but they seem to miss the hypocrisy in denying the use of the Capitol Square to praying Christians, who represent many more people than they do- a fact ignored by WSJ reporters.

The right to public prayer has actually been constitutionally upheld numerous times. Yet the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) continues to attack public prayer wherever they think they can win, through legal intimidation of groups with small budgets, like the town of Marshfield, WI.

The feeble attempts made by Craig, Annie and Genie to label Rosary Rallies events as political

Progressives Misjudging Catholics?

also reflects a judgmental attitude; they claim to know the motivation of others.  After misjudging their target’s motivation, many “progressives” continue by attacking and violating the rights of those with whom they disagree. The Constitution does not guarantee a Right to Hateful Harassment.  Moreover, the effectiveness of such tactics in promoting one’s cause are highly dubious.

I am proud to say that I have never gone to any Madison Capitol Square event to boo, heckle, curse, scream, disrupt or to counter-protest.  I don’t engage in hateful behavior towards those with whom I disagree.  Prayer is a much more civilized (and more productive) response.  My sentiments are representative of those of Rosary Rally attendees.

Ignoring Two Thirds of America

Doug Erickson missed the boat completely by covering the Rosary Rally story from the perspective of a few radical protesters, and by omitting the concerns of two thirds of America.

The Rosary Rallies actually represent the majority of Wisconsin and of America.
The Catholics at the Rally represent all religions in America, which were recently galvanized and united by the religious freedom violations of the HHS Mandate. Numerous religions joined Catholics in opposing these violations of the First Amendment, an amendment which all religions value.  Orthodox Christian Bishops, Protestant Theological Seminary chancellors, Presbyterian Bishops, Southern Baptists, Lutherans Evangelical Lutherans and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have rallied to support the Catholic Church in upholding the Catholic position on the HHS mandate.  This is what Doug Erickson has failed to cover in his reporting.

The Rosary Rallies are large, peaceful, sustained, and they represent the reasonable Judeo-Christian views and the civilized demeanor of at least two thirds of America.

• Two thirds of America supports the Catholic Church against the HHS Mandate’s violation of our religious freedoms.
• Two thirds of America opposes federal funding of abortion.
• More than two thirds of America (80%) is Christian.
• More than two thirds of America (82%) prays regularly, 47% pray daily.
• More than two thirds of America (83%) say God answers prayers.
• Two Thirds of America supports prayer in public schools.
• 53% of Americans favor repeal of ObamaCare (43% opposed).
• Twice as many American are conservative as liberal
• Numerous religions, including Baptists, Evangelicals and Jews, support the Catholic position in Stand Up for Religious Freedom, the program which gave birth to this Rosary Rally.

In ignoring the perspective of Catholics at the Rosary Rally in favor of the perspective of a couple fringe radicals, Doug Erickson has ignored 2/3 of America.   He has ignored the majority of America’s opposition to federally funded abortion policy, and he has ignored the social consequences of such abortion policy, which has already resulted in shocking coerced abortion rates of 64% .   Abortion is a much bigger deal than most people think .

Ignoring Religious Leaders:
Evangelical Pastors Join Catholics in the Defense of Religious Liberty

The national Religious Liberty debate has been ignored by WSJ, in favor of reporting speculations by a couple of “progressives” on the motivations of Catholics at prayer.

The Catholic Church is not the only group defending religious liberty in the wake of the HHS Mandate.

“THIS AREA HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.”

Evangelical Christian pastors have just organized a bold and courageous protest against the muzzling of moral leaders in America, and in support of religious freedom. On October 7, 2012, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will be celebrated.  More than 1,000 pastors will preach sermons from the pulpit talking about the candidates running for office and then making a specific recommendation.  The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.  The pastors expect the IRS to try to enforce a 1954 IRS tax code amendment forbidding tax-exempt organizations from participating in discussion of candidates for public office.  When the IRS tries to revoke tax-exempt status and to impose an excise tax on them, the pastors will welcome the court battle.  They claim that the 1954 IRS tax code amendment is blatantly unconstitutional, and they welcome an official evaluation of the amendment in court.
This effort is sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal ministry formed 18 years ago for the defense of religious freedom through strategy, training, funding and litigation.

Not the First Time WSJ Has Slanted the News

Slanted reporting in the Wisconsin State Journal is not new, nor surprising. Their coverage of the 2011 Teacher’s Union Protests was equally misleading and predisposed toward the  “progressive” viewpoint. Lawlessness and misconduct was not reported, both on the part of demonstrators who trashed the Capitol, and on the part of Democrat officials who conspired to block the legal process.  WSJ coverage was so slanted and misleading, that this blogger took to reporting what’s really happening in Wisconsin on my blog.

The WSJ also gives the tiny Freedom From Religion Foundation quite a bit of favorable press.  Again, a fringe radical group (0.003 of 1% of Americans) gets favored coverage over mainstream Wisconsin.

Twisting and Misrepresenting Catholicism

Coverage of Catholicism in the WSJ has frequently been unprofessionally imbalanced.

Just this week, Doug Erickson did a “moral analysis” of the Catholic vote.
He gave equal weight and space to dissident national co-chairman of Catholics for Obama, as he did to Bishop Morlino of Madison, who is a legitimate and accurate representative of the Catholic Church.

Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals”

Catholics for Obama is a group established in 2007, with a website hosted at www.barackobama.com .  Membership numbers are not provided, but are probably a few thousand or less, based on petition signatures quoted at Catholic Democrat. According to Breitbart.com,  Catholics for Obama is dominated by the radical left wing, which promotes Alinsky “social justice” ideology.

So in Doug Erickson’s world, barakobama.com, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and a couple thousand petition signatories carry the same moral authority as a Catholic Bishop and 78 million real American Catholics.  Doug is equating the fringe 0.06 of 1% of Catholics whose theology is steered by Obama, with legitimate Catholic officials and faithful Catholics.  (Bishop Morlino’s education includes a doctorate in Moral Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, with specialization in fundamental moral theology and bioethics.)

WSJ also recently inflamed a parish conflict with imbalanced reporting, favoring dissidents over the Catholic majority.  The dissident minority was portrayed in a favorable light over the faithful majority.

Doug Erickson: Reporting on the 0.06 of 1% of Madison Diocese  Catholics (Holy Wisdom) – and relegating the 99.94%  (real) Catholics to the last paragraph, entitled “detractors.”

Another Doug Erickson report focused on pair of previously Catholic nuns at Holy Wisdom Monastery, who appear to be recruiting Catholics to join their feminist Sunday services in place of attending the Mass.  These nuns retain the name Benedictines, despite having rescinded their Benedictine vows and having separated themselves from the Catholic Church.  Doug Erickson reported on this fringe minority group of two very favorably, but relegated input from real Catholics, including from the Diocese of Madison, to a last paragraph entitled “detractors,” where he quoted Catholics minimally, and out of context.  A minority of two dissidents was portrayed in a favored light, while real Catholics were again downplayed.

The misrepresentation of Catholics in the Wisconsin State Journal could fill numerous blog posts (and has in the past), but the above three examples will suffice here.

For a Truthful Report on the Capitol Rosary Rally: see You Tube

The Capitol Rosary Rally,  which the Wisconsin State Journal did not bother to portray accurately, and which reflects the Christian views and the civilized demeanor of the majority of Christian America can be seen here:

Come join Catholics in the 14^th Capitol Rosary Rally tonight, Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, at the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM.  Come watch what real Americans do (they act civilized and pray), stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America.  All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.

Discussing the Actual Issue

Something else Doug Erickson failed to do in his Capitol Rosary article was to discuss the question that his progressive friends raised; is it legal for Catholics to pray the rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?

First Congressional Prayer, 1777

Answer:
Public prayer is legal.
The National Day of Prayer was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals  and President Obama supported prayer in a Presidential Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer, 2012
Congress has also just taken steps to ensure that prayer is supported at School Board Meetings.   President Obama prays and states that “We stand for religious freedom.”

So public prayer is legal, and public gatherings at the Wisconsin State Capitol are legal.

Public gatherings at Madison’s Capitol have included Farmer’s Markets, restaurant showcase events (Taste of Madison), and Wisconsin Capitol Pride, an event promoting LGBTQA acceptance and rights.
Why would Catholic gatherings be forbidden?  Why would promoting prayer for religious freedom be forbidden?

Discussing the Double Standard

WSJ failed to address this double standard of progressive Rosary critics in the article.
The progressive Rosary Hecklers quoted by WSJ demand freedom of belief and freedom of speech for themselves, but not for others.  They want the right to scream four-letter words at others across Capitol Square in the presence of children, but to forbid the words “Our Father, who art in heaven.”

Further Important Issues Omitted by the WSJ report:

• Validity of Christian claims regarding the violation of religious freedom by the HHS mandate
• Evaluation of the position of America’s moral leaders on the religious freedom issue
• Reporting the obvious differences in behavior, lawfulness and respect for the rights of others between the rosary participants and the heckling critics.

• Definition of “separation of Church and State.”
• Discussion of whether a once-in-14-prayer-rallies mention of two pro-life politicians constitutes a “violation of separation of Church and State.”
• Discussion of the very pertinent 1954 IRS code amendment, which has been used by the IRS to silence Christian pastors, but has not been subject to an examination of constitutionality by the courts.
• The effect that restrictions on religious freedom would have on the rights of progressives when in the future conservative Presidents are elected, and the effect on this country’s historical role as the safe haven for the world’s émigrés.

Suggestion: if Doug Erickson is to be the WSJ “religion” reporter, he must examine the serious issues affecting religion, rather than using his status at the WSJ to spread progressive propaganda. He should provide some professional and journalisticly ethical analysis of real religious issues.

Shame on the Wisconsin State Journal for Ethics Violations

Shame on Doug Erickson

The Wisconsin State Journal has violated the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics with this misrepresentation of Madison’s Capitol Rosary Rally.

• WSJ did not seek the truth and report it.
• WSJ did not minimize harm.
• WSJ did not act independently.
• WSJ was not accountable.

Renaming the Wisconsin State Journal

The Wisconsin State Journal should be renamed:

the Wisconsin State Journal Progressive

Invitation: Come and Join Us!

Come tonight, and every Thursday night at 7PM through November 1^st.

Join Catholics today in the 14^th Capitol Rosary Rally –  Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, on the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM.
Come watch what most Americans do (they act civilized and they pray).
Stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America.
All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.

Agnostics welcome.
Atheists welcome.
Baptists welcome.
Buddhists welcome.
Catholics welcome.
Evangelicals welcome.
Jews welcome.
Lutherans welcome.
Muslims welcome
Presbyterians welcome.
All welcome, including any not mentioned above.
Invitation limited to well-behaved people who respect the rights of others.

All of us need, and will benefit from, freedom of religion (of belief), which is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.  This freedom has been violated by President Obama’s HHS Mandate, a mandate which must be reversed.

Why Even Atheists Should Stand Against Presidential Mandates

If Presidents of the future will be permitted to issue mandates like the HHS Mandate, without popular vote, without Senate or House vote, and without Supreme Court evaluation, what mandate will the NEXT President of the United States, who may not belong to your favorite political affiliation, decree?

I may not like President Obama’s mandates.
But others, including atheists, would not like President Romney’s mandates
or President Rick Santorum’s mandates
or President Ron Paul’s mandates
or President Michelle Bachmann’s mandates.

The next President could issue a Mandate that imposes tax penalties not on Catholics, but on  International Workers Union Members,  FFRF Members, Solidarity Singers, and Madison LGBT activists-  severe, crippling penalties.  Then were would Craig, Annie, Genie and Bluebird be?  The Mandate could include penalties for Wisconsin Sate Journal reporters, too, Doug.

We all benefit from supporting freedom and democracy.
We have to coexist, so progressives should realize that in 46 days the shoe might be on the other foot.
This is still a democracy, and Presidential mandates are thinly disguised despotic edicts.

These are some of the religious, ethical and cultural issues that Doug Erickson and the WSJ should be discussing, rather than spreading the speculations of fringe progressives on the motivation of Catholics.

Commitment to Truth

or

Romney vs. Santorum?

.

.

Fortune Cookie

.

Fortune cookie yesterday:

If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.

Good advice for Presidential candidates this election year!

Truth can be, and has been analyzed both by me and by more noteworthy philosophers throughout millennia of history.  Cultures have differing attitudes towards truth and toward its value.

Without embarking on a long philosophical discussion, suffice it to say that the foundations of European and United States governments rest on Christian principles; that Christ is the Word and the Truth; and that our innate common sense indicates the importance of truth during an election year.  A vote is meaningless if it is cast for a lie.

Democracy does not work when candidates lie.

Election year compels us to question the trustworthiness, truthfulness, and dependability of political candidates.

Barak Obama

Our President Barak Obama is not famous for truthfulness.  The issue under consideration by the Supreme Court today, the constitutionality of ObamaCare, is one prime example of Obama’s lack of commitment to truth.  ObamaCare was passed only very narrowly, and only after Obama promised Stupak, who was holding out for the exclusion of abortion from ObamaCare, that abortion would be definitely be excluded from ObamaCare.  70% of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion, yet the Obama administration has included abortion in ObamaCare.  That’s a pretty big lie, going back on a public promise, and railroading federal funding of something that half of America considers equivalent to murder and to the Holocaust, and something for which 70% of America opposes public funding.

Other lies of President Obama’s include :

• Saying that 80% of Americans support higher taxes (actually 34% support)
• Claiming his mother was denied health insurance (not true)
• Pledging not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000
• Promising shovel-ready construction jobs with stimulus; later telling the NY Times there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.
• Pledging that Americans would be able to keep their doctors under ObamaCare
• Claiming he would not reward lobbyist with jobs
• Making false statements about the involvement of foreign money in U.S. elections
• Misrepresenting Arizona’s immigration law
• Pledging transparency, then refusing 1/3 of Freedom of Information Act requests, failing to televise health-care negotiations on C-SPAN, and failing to wait 5 days so people could read the ObamaCare legislation online.
• Violating his Oath of Office, by failing to protect the Constitution and ignoring the 10^th amendment, which states that all powers, which the Constitution does not specifically allocate or prohibit, are reserved to the states (to the people).   President Obama has claimed many powers for the Executive branch; primary example is ObamaCare.
• Additional lies
• Obama’s biggest lies

With Obama, when it’s not lies, it’s disregard for and manipulation of the will of the American people, which is just as serious.  In fact, today, President Obama was caught on a hot microphone betraying his electorate, asking Russian President Medvedev to put off discussions of nuclear defense reductions until after the November election, when Obama would have more “flexibility” (to disregard the will of the people). 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…

Discussing Abortion

From a recent discussion on abortion:

Syte:

You should stop calling abortion a woman’s “right.”

Half of all women disagree with you.  Half of all women are pro-life, and half of all women believe that abortion is morally wrong – Gallup Poll 2011.

www.faithmouse.com

Women have no more “right” to kill an inconvenient child than they have to kill an inconvenient husband, an inconvenient elder parent, or an inconvenient neighbor.

Abortion also hurts women physically, emotionally and psychologically — abortion facts.

As a woman, I have a right not to have my taxes spent on the killing of human beings and the damaging of women’s lives.

There is a new, much improved feminism which is superior to the old outdated feminism which demanded the destruction of what a woman values the most—her family.

Alan (name changed):

And the half that don’t agree with you Syte? Their voices matter less than yours? Abortion is legal whether or not you agree with it. You might want to revise your BS line about it being the same as killing a husband. Or was that “not intended to be a factual statement”? By your logic I have a right not to have my tax dollars go towards illegal foreign wars and gas subsidies. In a democracy you don’t always get what you want.

Syte:

Alan —

If you want democracy, the Gallup poll shows that 51% of Americans consider abortion to be morally wrong, while 39% find it morally acceptable.  Not that public opinion can alter morality, but even on your terms, you lose.

BTW, despite your attempts to call pro-life opinions “BS”, morally, the “wrongness” of the killing of a pre-born child is not less than the killing of a husband.   A human is a human, no matter how small.

Alan:

From the the exact same poll you keep posting 49% are Pro-Choice while a measly 46% are Pro-Life (or anti-choice as I like to call it). A human is a human sure but a fetus is a fetus and a zygote is a zygote and abortion is legal. Tell me again why Republicans did NOTHING while they controlled ALL of the federal government from 2001-2006? Keep fighting the good fight though if it makes you feel morally superior. It’s a fight you’ll never win. As soon as Republicans take action they lose this as a wedge issue. And that’s all this is. Republicans manipulating Christians.

Syte:

Alan –

No need to get so emotional.  Perhaps YOU like to feel morally superior, but you have no grounds for throwing that accusation at me.  It is possible to disagree with people and to debate the facts without feeling morally superior or turning it into a fight.

You might like to call pro-lifers “anti-choice,” but I refrain from calling you guys “pro-murder,” and I also point out that the only reason that you are debating with me today, and the only reason other readers are reading this, is that nobody killed US when we were zygotes, fetuses, pre-borns, or whatever terminology pleases you.

So what about the “choice” of the unborn child?  The Constitution guarantees the right to “life, liberty and property.”  Abortion takes away the first, fundamental right, life, without which there can be no further rights.

Just trying to put the facts out there.  BTW, you misquoted the poll.  You might concede that within the error margin of the Gallup poll, Americans have been pretty much 50/50 on pro-life and pro-choice for the last several years.  Which, incidentally, is quite a change from the 33/56 ratio we had in 1996, fifteen years ago.  Like it or not, Americans are rapidly turning pro-life, as they find out more about abortion and its effects on women, on children and on society.

In addition, on other related questions, pro-life is actually winning today in 2011   :

• 51% say abortion is morally wrong, while 39% say it’s morally permissible.
• 27% say abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
• 37% say abortion should be legal under most circumstances
• 61% say that abortion should be legal under no or few circumstances.

Regarding majorities and abortion and why the Republicans have not reversed abortion, you should know better, unless you have not been following this issue.  There has never been a vote on the legality of abortion in the United States, either by the people, or by the legislature.  Abortion decisions, starting with Roe v. Wade, have been made by APPOINTED judges who were not elected, and who do not represent the will of the American people in any way.   When a liberal president appoints a liberal judge, we are stuck with that liberal judge’s decisions for the tenure, regardless of the will of the people or of the legislature.  Liberals have found a loophole in the Constitution, by which the will of the people can be circumvented.  Glad to have the opportunity to point that out.

Alan:

Yeah that damned Liberal court we have now sure is making decisions based on the will of the people. Is that thier job? Their job is to interpret the law, or in Clarence thomas’ case sleep through the process while others interpret the law. I only pointed out the near 50/50 tie becasue you decided 51% in a poll on morality was enough to support your argument. Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty. It’s not according to the US Constituiton or the bible so where do you get the idea that life starts at conception? What I want is for conservatives to stick to thier supposed values. Keep the government out of the uterus.

Syte:

Alan, you wrote:  “Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty…..   not according to …..the bible.”

No? Not a certainty, unless you consult moral experts—including most major religions, the Dalai Lama, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Hindus, Islamic leaders, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Protestant Churches (all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations), the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of other moral experts including over 1,000 pro-life groups that are not affiliated with religious denominations, who all oppose abortion on demand.  These moral experts are not in vehement opposition to the surgical removal of a mole, but to the termination of a human life.

Also, your claim that a pre-born child may not be a “life” IS addressed in the Bible:

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the INFANT leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost”- Luke 1:41

John the Baptist was a second-trimester baby at the time that he is described in the Bible as an “infant.” Christ, to whom John the Baptist was responding, was an embryo, probably a few weeks old.  Surely, the Bible’s use of the term “infant,” and the ability of persons to recognize and respond to each other, indicates the existence of “life”?

Throughout our society our laws and language acknowledge the “life” of a pre-born child:

• Murderers get charged with TWO counts of murder when they murder pregnant women.
• The Mayo clinic uses the word “baby” throughout their online description of “fetal” development.
• Even YOU used the phrase “pre-born CHILD.”

A child only seems to lose human life status when he or she becomes “inconvenient,” and comes under consideration for abortion.  Then the language of dehumanization kicks in, to whitewash what is really going on, and to make it more palatable.

Steven (name changed):

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage

specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

—Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

Syte:

Steven—

Your quotation actually shows that under Mosaic Law a pregnant woman was acknowledged to be carrying a CHILD, and that causing the loss of that child “will surely be punished.”

HOW do you contort that into claiming that Mosaic Law approved abortion?  Your quotation actually does the opposite of approving abortion.  It acknowledges the human life existing in the woman and specifies punishment for the destruction of that life.

You are really grasping at straws.

Steven:

You fail to investigate the bible’s definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

Steven:

If you are an American christian, you may want to check out these groups:
American Baptist Churches-USA, American Ethical Union, American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Episcopal Church, utheran Women’s Caucus, Moravian Church in America-Northern Province, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United Synagogue of America, Women’s Caucus Church of the Brethren, YWCA, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Free Choice, Evangelicals for Choice

Syte:

Steven –

Of course, the fact that we are having this discussion is because you were not aborted as a child.  This unequivocally proves that the developing fetus is a human being, unless I am now debating with just a huge mass of cells.

It is dangerous to interpret a “deafening silence” in your own favor.  For example, before Sept 11th, there was a “deafening silence” in the U.S. and in our homeland security policies regarding flying airplanes into buildings.  It cannot be inferred from that silence that the U.S. approved of flying airplanes into buildings.  It is more reasonable to infer that such a heinous act was never imagined to be possible before Sept 11th.

So it is equally possible, and even more probable, that the relative silence of the Bible ( don’t dismiss my Luke 1:41 example above, which the vast majority of religions interpret as evidence that a preborn child is as human as the rest of us!), that the relative silence of the Bible on abortion was due to:

• The violent and destructive nature of abortion, which rendered it an unthinkable act previously –something no one in their right mind would consider, akin to flying airplanes into buildings.
• The tremendous medical risks associated with abortion without the assistance of modern technology, which was not available at the time.

Regarding your listing of some Christian Churches which allow abortion– the reason for the historical proliferation of Christian Churches in recent times is the fact that people who wished to justify what was previously considered to be morally wrong split off from the first Church – starting with divorce, now including abortion.  Finding a church which approves your favorite transgression of previously accepted morality is not the best way to go, for anyone interested in what is REALLY right or really wrong.

We don’t usually make our own unprofessional conclusions before seeking a doctor, engineer, lawyer, or home inspection expert who agrees with us.  We call in the experts, and ask THEM for guidance.  So, too, with a church—if you decide for yourself whether abortion is morally right or wrong, then choose  a marginal church according to your own conclusion, then you are wasting your time.  You might as well call yourself Church and be done with it.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of mainstream religions do not approve abortion.  You misquote the policies of some churches – for example, the United Methodist Church does NOT condone abortion – “The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of human life and is reluctant to affirm abortion as an acceptable practice” – Wikipedia on Christianity and Abortion .  Similarly, not all Presbyterian Churches allow abortion. Catholics for a Free Choice are not a church, but a miniscule minority group of dissidents within the Catholic Church, who have been excommunicated. Their membership comprises 0.001 of 1% of Catholics.  I have not checked the rest of your list, but you might be wrong on quite a few of them.

.

It is with hesitation that I embark on discussing the behavior of liberals, particularly in reference to recent labor disputes at the Wisconsin State Capitol, which is located 3 miles from my home and 3 blocks from my parish Church.   Most often I try to avoid criticizing the behavior of others, keeping in mind the Biblical counsel:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.   – Luke 6:42

But events at the Wisconsin State Capitol in recent weeks have culminated in a situation that commands some discussion.  The pursuit and cornering of conservative Senator Grothman by 200 aggressive liberals, ultimately requiring his rescue by firefighters, was broadcast on FOX news, but was glossed over by most liberal media last week:

.

This shocking event, which included shouting, intimidation, chanting “shame,” bleeped vulgar

No violence? Hmmm...

expletives, drum beating and blowing of whistles, reflected the general uncivilized aggressive attitudes displayed by demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol during the past 3 weeks.  It is a situation that could easily have caused injury and/or heart attack to the elderly Senator, and is at very least shameful in the lack of respect with which an elected representative of the people of the United States was treated by an angry liberal mob.

This shocking treatment of Senator Grotham by liberals illustrates quite a double standard, particularly when compared with the criticism conservatives suffered recently from liberal media regarding the use of crosshair imagery during the last election, particularly after the shooting of Representative Giffords, and at least while liberal media still thought that the shooter could be tied to conservatives.

The ultimate question with which I struggled for 3 weeks before writing this post, and with which all conservatives in America must struggle, is how does a reserved conservative like me, who tries to live by the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and by the rule of forbearance (assume the best imaginable explanation for another’s behavior), how do we deal with vocal and liberal opponents who do not feel constrained by the same behavioral guidelines that we respect and revere?

How do you win a battle against opponents who use aggressive tactics which you consider immoral and which you yourself refuse to use?  Should we remain the silent majority?

So far this past month, liberal supporters of Wisconsin unions have broken a number of rules and regulations which are generally essential for the orderly operation of society, and which have never been observed in conservative demonstrations such as those involving the Tea Party or Pro-Life:

• 14 legislators have left the State of Wisconsin so that police could not force them to attend State legislature voting sessions that they are legally obliged to attend.  These senators are sabotaging democracy and showing no respect for the people’s choices during the November 2010 election.  They are advocating rule not by the majority, but by the loudest and the most aggressive.
• Thousands of Madison teachers have not only gone on strike, depriving children of education, and have lied fraudulently about their motives, claiming to be sick.  They are teaching our children to lie.
• UW Madison doctors have appeared downtown handing out sick notes to demonstrators, a clear violation of medical ethics and a willful deception and cheating of the taxpayers by medical doctors.  They are also teaching our children to lie.
• Thousands of demonstrators have refused to leave the State Capitol at closing time, sleeping inside the Capitol and making it impossible for maintenance staff to do their work.  Maintenance staff have indicated their fear of the crowds, not feeling safe in doing their work.
• Police unions, whose jobs were unaffected by the proposed budget cuts, sympathized with the teachers unions, and stopped ticketing vehicles which were illegally parked downtown, as well as refusing to protect legislators like Senator Grothman from aggressive crowds.  Liberal media gleefully claimed “peaceful demonstrators” and “no arrests” each day, when in actual fact Madison’s police appeared to be on strike were not performing all their duties.
• Over the course of the 3 week demonstration, some claim that the demonstrators caused $7.5 million damage to the stately Madison Capitol building
  

  Wisconsin State Capitol Building

  which was constructed of 43 types of stone from six countries and eight states around 1910.  The $7.5 million damage is larger than the original cost of the erecting the Capitol in 1910 ($7.25 million).

• The Capitol building, probably for the first time in its 100-year history, began to stink.
• Demonstrators have been imported into Madison by unions all over the U.S., from as far away as California.  President Obama has also sent supporters and has voiced support for the unions, despite the fact that the President’s own federal workers do not enjoy the luxurious privileges the Wisconsin unions are trying to maintain for themselves. Wisconsin taxpayers are now the victims of the entire nation’s belligerent union hierarchy.
• Homeless people have abandoned local Church shelters in favor of  living in the Capitol building, where free pizza is provided by out-of-state union bosses.
• Union demonstrators have abandoned all rules of professionalism and civility.  Posters and
  

  Sign with crosshairs over Governer Walker's face

  chants reflect violence, hate and vulgarity, totally eclipsing the “crosshairs” controversy following the shooting of Representative Giffords this January.  Signs have routinely compared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hosni Mubarak and showed the Wisconsin governor with a cross-hairs rifle sight over his face .  Fourteen of the “100 best posters at the Wisconsin Capitol” are too vulgar to show on this website  . One sign reads “Hey, Walker, WI Ranger, who’s gonna wipe yer ___ when U have a stroke???”

• Live ammunition was found stashed outside the Wisconsin State Capitol by police.
• Residents and groups surrounding the Madison Capitol building have suffered poor treatment from demonstrators.  Our Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, part of Madison’s downtown Catholic Cathedral Parish, has struggled to keep parking open for Church members.  When approached by Church staff with requests not to use our parking lot, demonstrators use vulgarity and tell Church staff to “get a life.”   Police do not help either, they have stopped ticketing downtown.
• Demonstrators have not been acting like teachers, but more like angry mobsters.
• Demonstrators, as well as the liberal media,  have misrepresented the issues, exaggerating and misquoting the Governor’s terms and failing to explain the rationale behind both points of view—pro-union and pro-balanced budget.  Truth seems to have no role in this debate, and liberal media does not seem interested in discussion. Some representative photos from Vicki McKenna.
• While 60,000 liberals skipped work, demonstrated and trashed the Wisconsin Capitol, 126,000 conservatives signed an online “Stand with Walker” petition, went to work, took care of their children who were abandoned by teachers, and prepared to pay for the damage the demonstrating minority was causing.   Incidentally, there are only about 100,000 union members in Wisconsin, in contrast to the 5,000,000 taxpayers who do not have union benefits and are paying their bills.

It is an established fact that some demographic differences exist between liberals and conservatives.    The differences are primarily philosophical, NOT racial or ethnic, as liberal media would imply:

– Wikipedia

The increased Church attendance and respect for marriage indicated above in conservatives reflects their willingness to conform to the Judeo-Christian values

Ten Commandments

encompassed by the Ten Commandments, on which our systems of law have historically been based.   It is easy to see the projection of this voluntary self-restraint onto acceptable codes of public behavior, which translate into the peaceful and dignified political gatherings and respect for public property characteristic of Tea Party and Pro-Life gatherings nationwide – particularly in the January 2011 March for Life in Washington DC (just 2 weeks prior to the union demonstrations at the Wisconsin State Capitol), where 400,000 people gathered peacefully to show their support for Life, but which Madison’s liberal media did not mention at all.

This past month, the converse, a distinct LACK of voluntary self-restraint, lack of peaceful and dignified protests and lack of respect for public property, has been observed in downtown Madison during the union protests.

These recent events in Madison are by no means unique.  In my 20+ years living as a conservative in liberal Madison, I have personally witnessed numerous times a dramatic difference in the demeanor of liberals and of conservatives in the public square.

Vigil for Life, Fewb 2010

One year ago at a Pro-Life rally in February of 2010, I observed over 1,000 reserved, well-dressed and well-behaved pro-lifers at Madison’s Library Mall standing in the winter cold,  listening quietly to pro-life speakers (which included Senator Grotham), while 20 -30 liberal student radicals, rallying to the campus-wide spam invitation issued by student socialists, yelled, chanted, attempted to disrupt speeches, performed lascivious strip-tease in a nearby raised platform in front of children, and were finally restrained and led off by police. Madison’s liberal media did an abysmal job of reporting this event, failing to report the difference in numbers at this event (1,000 versus 25), and failing to report the difference in demeanor of the two groups.  To read the brief Madison newspaper report, it would seem that opposing groups of similar size confronted each other briefly downtown.

This 40:1 ratio of civilized well-behaved citizens to loud disruptors at the Pro-Life rally above is similar to the 50:1 ratio of Wisconsin citizens who work and pay the bills to protesting union workers at the Wisconsin State Capitol last month (5 million to 100,000).  Yet again, the minority is attempting to control the majority by intimidation.

Another recent contrast in the demeanor of liberals and conservatives is illustrated by my blog post on the Madison pro-marriage rally of  Aug 1, 2010 .   During the pro-marriage rally, Catholic Bishop of Madison led conservative attendees in praying the “Our Father,” while hundreds of liberals surrounded them yelling and chanting, disrupting the prayer and attempting to approach the podium where the Bishop was standing, again restrained by police.

I refrain from using the political labels Democrat or Republican intentionally.  I include myself among numerous conservative independents who have never belonged to one political party, and whose beliefs are not in line with one party platform.  However, I must say that in recent years I am finding myself (steered by my Pro-Life views) most often in sympathy with the Republican Party.

.

In addition, the uncivilized and inconsiderate behavior of liberal Democrats in recent years, observed in numerous situations similar to those described here, has struck me as threatening democracy and attempting to replace democracy with mob rule.  No society can function like this.   Any rational person must ask—why did the Republicans NOT walk out of Congress and the Senate when ObamaCare was on the table, but the Democrats DID walk out when they did not like the legislation being discussed in Wisconsin?  How can democracy function when minority legislators hijack the democratic process by refusing to follow the rules?

.

The seeming readiness of liberals to break ALL rules – State Capitol visiting hour rules, legislative rules, teachers sick leave rules, medical ethics rules, rules of cleanliness, rules of polite and respectful discourse, rules of civilized language and behavior in front of children, rules regarding use of live ammunition, and common sense rules about public behavior – the breaking of all these rules makes discussion impossible.  The demonstrators do not appear at all interested in discussion of the common good.  They only seem interested in keeping their comfortable privileges by any means necessary, be that bullying, trashing Wisconsin’s State Capitol, or mob rule.

This is not the America we love and that our military risks their lives to protect.

It is time for the silent majority to become even MORE active than they were in November 2010.

God the Father (Sistine Chapel)

Who believes in God?

8 out of 10 Americans believe in a God who is responsible for creating human life.

The results of a new Gallup Poll ( Dec 17, 2010) indicate:

• 40% of Americans believe in straight creationism
• 38% of Americans believe in evolution guided by God
• 16% of Americans believe in evolution without involvement of God.

Add the first 2 numbers:  78% of Americans believe that God is responsible for creating human beings.

There is little correlation with degree of education; 71% of Americans with postgraduate education believe that God is responsible for creating human beings (see original Gallup Poll).

Who would have guessed this?

According to the mainstream media, only the uneducated and unenlightened believe in God, and Evolution is an absolute religion.  In actual fact, seems that most Americans, including most highly educated Americans, see evolution as one of the tools used by God in creation, or do not believe evolutionary theory at all.   I’m in the “evolution occasionally used by God” camp.  God, in His wisdom, uses many tools, and to an honest and discerning scientist, evidence of evolution, although clearly present, is neither ubiquitous nor absolute.

Nativity, Charles Poerson

The next step in logic:  if God is responsible for the creation of human life, and we are not just highly evolved mammals, do we have the right to do with human life as we please, without regard for God’s law?  There are some things on which all religions agree, and that includes the sacredness of human life.

The Christ Child is born!  Alleluia!

He came to be one of us — an embryo, a fetus, a tiny vulnerable child.

“Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.” – Luke 2:14

You are reading this because nobody killed you while you were an embryo.

A pro-life vote in this election is a vote for human rights.  Unborn children have the right to life, and African-American babies have the right NOT to be selectively destroyed.   77%   of  African-American pregnancies are aborted right now, and African-American babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies.  Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the black population in the U.S.has been reduced by over 25 percent( ref).

A nation which cares about 4,295 combat deaths (~430 per year) in the War on Terror , and cares about 40,000 motor vehicle deaths per year, should also care about  1 Million infant deaths by abortion per year.

For those who are hard-hearted enough to advocate     1 million yearly infant deaths for the sake of a promiscuous lifestyle without consequence– consider, too, the financial repercussions.  The tax dollar contributions, as well as social security contributions that would be made by the  45 million Americans who are missing  since Roe v. Wade, would be staggering.

The argument that unaborted babies would be a burden on society (given the racial abortion statistics quoted above) borders on racism.  Generally, the birth of a baby transforms people of any color into more mature, caring and motivated individuals who become an asset to society.

Pro-abortion arguments such as rape or incest are attempts to sensationalize the issue, and to circumvent the real ethical questions.  Rape and incest actually represent only 1% of abortions, and are introduced to distract from the fundamental moral issue.  Planned Parenthood actually often helps molesters and rapists to hide their crimes, by assisting them with abortion and failing to report their crimes.

Many don’t seem to realize that each embryo IS actually a new and unique human person, as important and valuable as we all are.  Size or age does not diminish the value of any human being.

This irreplaceable value of each human life  is at the heart of moral teachings and respect for human life, and is essential for the healthy and balanced survival of human society.

The ethical questions behind pro-life issues cannot be so trivially dismissed as some attempt to do by masquerading murder under the banner of “pro-choice.”

Whose choice?  Certainly not the unborn child’s choice!

Madison, vote Pro-Life!  In this election, that means vote Republican.