On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to pass House Resolution 2454 (the so-called "clean energy" or "climate change" bill, better known as "cap and trade") by a 219-212 vote, with 44 Democrats voting against it and 8 Republicans voting in favor of it (thus providing the highly unfortunate margin of passage). The Senate is likely to address the bill in September after the summer recess (the most eagerly awaited congressional recess in American history), and there is considerable doubt as to whether or not the bill will pass the Senate.
Folks, I can't tell you how disastrous this legislation would be, both from an economic and a moral standpoint. This bill would essentially empower the government to regulate our energy expenditures. It would cause energy costs to skyrocket, as Obama himself admitted in the following clip:
House Minority Leader John Boehner spent nearly an hour addressing this legislative travesty before the Friday vote, countering Nancy Pelosi's blatantly dishonest claim that this legislation would create more jobs. Among the things Boehner addressed was an amendment to the bill that would require home owners to subject their homes to a government-mandated environmental inspection which they are required to pass before the government will allow them to sell their homes. Amendments like these are scattered throughout the bill, and are a bald-faced attempt to restrict private property rights.
As to the issue of jobs, the bill would uphold the ban on domestic drilling, and would pave the way for further dependence on foreign oil. The list goes on and on. And as if we needed any further proof of how disastrous this legislation would be, there is one further fairly dependable gauge to go by: the leftist political front group and fraudulently-named Catholics United supports it. That alone should be enough to set off warning bells in the heads of any God-fearing, freedom-loving human being.
The financial consequences of a move towards a totalitarian socialism aside, we cannot overlook the frightening possibilities of what a newly-empowered, Obama-led government might do in the area of population control in the name of "saving the earth." China's forced abortion policy is largely the result of that barbaric regime trying to regulate the consumption of resources. What's to stop Obama - a demonically devoted opponent of the pro-life cause - from deciding that America's population needs to be capped at a certain level in order to preserve this nation's resources (many of which are ironically closed to us thanks to the provisions of this cap-and-trade legislation?). This is a dirty little secret of the environmental movement. All of the major environmental lobbyists in Washington - including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace - all hold official stances in favor of regulating population growth, ostensibly because the earth can only sustain so many people at one time (which might be true, though we are nowhere near that threshold and are not likely to reach it any time in the foreseeable future). This is not, as some have claimed, the views of only a small segment of the environmental movement. It is part of the lobby's agenda. And this cap and trade bill would be a step towards the fulfillment of that agenda.
It is highly imperative that our Senators be made aware of our displeasure with this legislative abomination. Let your Senators know that if and when they address this come September, their stance on this bill will go a long way towards determining their future electoral prospects. As my brother pointed out in a recent blog post, if the cap and trade legislation becomes law, Friday, June 26th, 2009 may well be the day that history regards as the day the American experiment failed. Brothers and sisters in Christ, America is not the great salvation of mankind, but among the world powers it is the closest thing to an ally that the forces of good have. Let us then preserve this experiment for as long as we can. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Amnesty International Demands No Amnesty For The Unborn
A great read from Piero A. Tozzi of the Catholic Human Rights and Family Institute (C-FAM) regarding Amnesty International's harsh criticism of the nation of Poland for its failure to have more liberalized abortion laws. And so another so-called "human rights" group proves itself fraudulent.
For years, Amnesty International studiously avoided taking a stance on the abortion issue while promoting social justice causes. The organization has long been known to have left-leaning political sympathies, but always wanted to maintain some measure of support from Christian organizations on commonly-held human rights issues by not running afoul of them on the abortion issue. As such, it served as a magnet for individuals who were adamantly opposed to war and capital punishment but who were ambivalent when it came to the rights of the unborn, and refused to divulge their true opinions on the abortion issue out of a desire to maintain an air of legitimacy in pro-life circles (Sr. Helen Prejean being a very prominent example, though whether or not she ever enjoyed legitimacy within the pro-life community is highly debatable).
That time has now passed, and Amnesty International has joined the long line of self-proclaimed "human rights" organizations with clear anti-life and anti-Christian sympathies. And, as this article once again shows, when it comes to enemies of the pro-life position, abortion is not merely a matter of choice. Either you cave in and support abortion without restrictions, or you are branded an opponent of human rights and become part of the only entity aside from Israel that the U.N. vigorously condemns with any measure of regularity. Go figure.
I've known a great many good pro-life people over the years who have supported Amnesty International precisely because they refused to come out in favor of abortion. If you know of any people who continue to give such support, please send the above article to them so they can see that Amnesty International has voluntarily removed itself from the category of organizations deserving of our support, and has done so with extreme prejudice. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
For years, Amnesty International studiously avoided taking a stance on the abortion issue while promoting social justice causes. The organization has long been known to have left-leaning political sympathies, but always wanted to maintain some measure of support from Christian organizations on commonly-held human rights issues by not running afoul of them on the abortion issue. As such, it served as a magnet for individuals who were adamantly opposed to war and capital punishment but who were ambivalent when it came to the rights of the unborn, and refused to divulge their true opinions on the abortion issue out of a desire to maintain an air of legitimacy in pro-life circles (Sr. Helen Prejean being a very prominent example, though whether or not she ever enjoyed legitimacy within the pro-life community is highly debatable).
That time has now passed, and Amnesty International has joined the long line of self-proclaimed "human rights" organizations with clear anti-life and anti-Christian sympathies. And, as this article once again shows, when it comes to enemies of the pro-life position, abortion is not merely a matter of choice. Either you cave in and support abortion without restrictions, or you are branded an opponent of human rights and become part of the only entity aside from Israel that the U.N. vigorously condemns with any measure of regularity. Go figure.
I've known a great many good pro-life people over the years who have supported Amnesty International precisely because they refused to come out in favor of abortion. If you know of any people who continue to give such support, please send the above article to them so they can see that Amnesty International has voluntarily removed itself from the category of organizations deserving of our support, and has done so with extreme prejudice. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Betrays Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy In Father's Day Reflections
I don't know where to begin with this one. Practically everything Obama says in his Father's Day message is contradicted by his policy stances.
You can click here for Obama's full statement in Parade.com. However, two excerpts immediately stand out as bearing explanation in light of how they square (or rather, fail to square) with Obama's policy decisions.
Obama writes: "That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most."
Interesting. Is President Obama admitting that life begins at conception? When did that determination suddenly fall within his pay grade? Is it within a President's pay grade? Is a President qualified to determine when life begins? Because it seems to me that this President didn't exactly trust the judgment of his predecessor on the issue, having made it a priority to reverse said predecessor's abortion-related policies.
Obama speaks about the importance of being there for a child and being man enough to raise the child. Yet his every policy position regarding the unborn essentially regards a "good father" as one that pays to have the child destroyed by an abortionist. Obama says it takes courage to raise a child, but it is hard to muster such courage when there is no child to raise, which is an unfortunate side effect of choosing to kill a child rather than raise it - with Obama's full blessing, of course.
And if the child was targeted for abortion but manages to be born alive anyway, there's no need for paternal courage in that case either. The President absolves you of any parental responsibility towards such a child. As far as Obama is concerned, you can let the doctor lock the child in a storage closet to die alone and unattended. Unlike Obama, you don't even need to be "present."
Obama speaks of men doing the difficult and thankless tasks with regards to their children, and to being there when the children struggle and need them most. Yet there is no more difficult and thankless aspect to fatherhood than to see the mother of your child through her pregnancy, and the baby's greatest struggle is to survive the period of time when uncaring judicial activists unilaterally declared - wisely, in Obama's view - that it was legal to kill it. It is during this uncertain time that a child needs the love of a mother and a father most. Yet despite Obama's statements in Parade.com, he has dedicated himself during his entire political career to ensuring that you don't have to worry about being a father during this time. No, in Obama's professional judgment, the child needs you most when neither judicial activists nor cold-hearted legislators (among whom can be counted a certain former state senator in Illinois) can legally justify its murder any longer. When a baby not previously targeted for abortion is fully delivered and has had its umbilical chord cut, then and only then does Obama say that you better be a dad. You see, at that point the "stop telling me what to do with my body!" fallacy so often used as a justification for abortion can no longer be logically sustained by even the most illogical minds, and Obama no longer risks incurring Planned Parenthood's or NOW's wrath. Until that point, however...baby, schmaby. You can jab a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, for all he cares.
Obama writes: "We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets."
Careful, Mr. President, you risk alienating one of your most devoted voting blocs.
Some questions, Mr. President:
- If we are our children's first and best teachers, why not speak out in support of homeschooling? After all, if the first and best teachers can be legally certified to educate a child, why should the child still be forced to go to a public school? Why go with an inferior educator when the best teacher is already available and home?
- Why turn a blind eye to legislation that prevents parents from pulling children out of the classroom when sex education is being taught? Why not trust parents, as the first and best teachers, to teach their children more effectively about the birds and the bees than some government-funded, condom-bearing drone?
- And if you are truly serious about the importance of a father in a child's life, why give a man like Kevin Jennings a post in the Department of Education? The man pushes a radical homosexual agenda, part of which is forcing society to accept homosexual unions as being on par with heterosexual marriage. He also pushes for compulsory extension of adoption services to homosexual couples (probably to offset the fact that homosexual unions cannot produce children naturally, despite this being one of the chief functions of those heterosexual marriages that homosexual unions are supposedly on par with). This would necessarily include allowing lesbian couples to adopt, and that scenario would preclude the presence of a father in the adopted child's life. Did you think through the consequences of this incredibly poor appointment? Or are you simply telling those leery of your moral agenda what you think they want to hear?
You see, Obama talks a good talk. He even gave an infamous "Just Words?" speech to deflect criticism of the fact that much of what he says is just words. I guess you can add this recent exercise in hypocrisy to that list.
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. You can only drown out your actions for so long before people start to recognize the vapid nature of your empty rhetoric. So either stop insulting our intelligence or make sure your actions don't completely contradict that stream of eloquent diction that scrolls through your teleprompter. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
You can click here for Obama's full statement in Parade.com. However, two excerpts immediately stand out as bearing explanation in light of how they square (or rather, fail to square) with Obama's policy decisions.
Obama writes: "That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most."
Interesting. Is President Obama admitting that life begins at conception? When did that determination suddenly fall within his pay grade? Is it within a President's pay grade? Is a President qualified to determine when life begins? Because it seems to me that this President didn't exactly trust the judgment of his predecessor on the issue, having made it a priority to reverse said predecessor's abortion-related policies.
Obama speaks about the importance of being there for a child and being man enough to raise the child. Yet his every policy position regarding the unborn essentially regards a "good father" as one that pays to have the child destroyed by an abortionist. Obama says it takes courage to raise a child, but it is hard to muster such courage when there is no child to raise, which is an unfortunate side effect of choosing to kill a child rather than raise it - with Obama's full blessing, of course.
And if the child was targeted for abortion but manages to be born alive anyway, there's no need for paternal courage in that case either. The President absolves you of any parental responsibility towards such a child. As far as Obama is concerned, you can let the doctor lock the child in a storage closet to die alone and unattended. Unlike Obama, you don't even need to be "present."
Obama speaks of men doing the difficult and thankless tasks with regards to their children, and to being there when the children struggle and need them most. Yet there is no more difficult and thankless aspect to fatherhood than to see the mother of your child through her pregnancy, and the baby's greatest struggle is to survive the period of time when uncaring judicial activists unilaterally declared - wisely, in Obama's view - that it was legal to kill it. It is during this uncertain time that a child needs the love of a mother and a father most. Yet despite Obama's statements in Parade.com, he has dedicated himself during his entire political career to ensuring that you don't have to worry about being a father during this time. No, in Obama's professional judgment, the child needs you most when neither judicial activists nor cold-hearted legislators (among whom can be counted a certain former state senator in Illinois) can legally justify its murder any longer. When a baby not previously targeted for abortion is fully delivered and has had its umbilical chord cut, then and only then does Obama say that you better be a dad. You see, at that point the "stop telling me what to do with my body!" fallacy so often used as a justification for abortion can no longer be logically sustained by even the most illogical minds, and Obama no longer risks incurring Planned Parenthood's or NOW's wrath. Until that point, however...baby, schmaby. You can jab a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, for all he cares.
Obama writes: "We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets."
Careful, Mr. President, you risk alienating one of your most devoted voting blocs.
Some questions, Mr. President:
- If we are our children's first and best teachers, why not speak out in support of homeschooling? After all, if the first and best teachers can be legally certified to educate a child, why should the child still be forced to go to a public school? Why go with an inferior educator when the best teacher is already available and home?
- Why turn a blind eye to legislation that prevents parents from pulling children out of the classroom when sex education is being taught? Why not trust parents, as the first and best teachers, to teach their children more effectively about the birds and the bees than some government-funded, condom-bearing drone?
- And if you are truly serious about the importance of a father in a child's life, why give a man like Kevin Jennings a post in the Department of Education? The man pushes a radical homosexual agenda, part of which is forcing society to accept homosexual unions as being on par with heterosexual marriage. He also pushes for compulsory extension of adoption services to homosexual couples (probably to offset the fact that homosexual unions cannot produce children naturally, despite this being one of the chief functions of those heterosexual marriages that homosexual unions are supposedly on par with). This would necessarily include allowing lesbian couples to adopt, and that scenario would preclude the presence of a father in the adopted child's life. Did you think through the consequences of this incredibly poor appointment? Or are you simply telling those leery of your moral agenda what you think they want to hear?
You see, Obama talks a good talk. He even gave an infamous "Just Words?" speech to deflect criticism of the fact that much of what he says is just words. I guess you can add this recent exercise in hypocrisy to that list.
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. You can only drown out your actions for so long before people start to recognize the vapid nature of your empty rhetoric. So either stop insulting our intelligence or make sure your actions don't completely contradict that stream of eloquent diction that scrolls through your teleprompter. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Saturday, June 20, 2009
While I Was Sleeping...
My apologies for the delays in posting. Truth is, I just got caught up in other things. Not especially important things, I'm afraid. But I guess we all go through phases where we are easily diverted.
Nevertheless, it has been an eventful few weeks in the world. The events in Iran have especially dominated the news of late. While I express my deepest sympathies and solidarity with the brave Iranians protesting the results of an obviously rigged election, I marvel that people can express shock at the fact that the election was, in fact, rigged. Expressing shock at a fraudulent display of democracy by a murderous dictatorial regime is akin to expressing shock at Keith Olbermann for making a fool of himself. You expect the snake to bite: it's inherent to its nature. As the old adage goes: "Never trust a snake." And while this world has more than its fair share of snakes - and more than its fair share of them in positions of power - few are more adept at crawling on their bellies than Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah Khameini.
On the domestic front, Barack Obama continues to name left fringe crazies to high ranking positions within his administration. Two recent examples especially stand out in this regard. On the education front, he has very quietly nominated militant gay activist Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings has a long track record of trying to push a sexually deviant agenda through the public school system, and is a vocal advocate of homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. More on the nomination - and Obama's general use of the press to divert attention away from his prolific nomination of radical leftists to key government posts - can be found in this great Townhall piece by Kevin McCullough.
The second nomination that caught my eye has been the subject of a rather humorous subplot in the past few weeks. Alexia Kelley, who is one of the core members of the apostate left wing front group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed by Obama as Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (Kelley, by the way, is the fourth person associated with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United to be appointed by Obama to a government post, and all 4 appointments are widely recognized as political payback for help during Obama's presidential campaign. Yet Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United laughably continue to hold themselves out as nonpartisan entities). The humor arises from the fact that shortly after the appointment was made, John O'Brien, successor to the semi-retired and hardly lamented Frances Kissling as head of the militantly pro-abortion and bitterly anti-Catholic group Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice. Why these groups think that name changes will rehabilitate their images is really quite beyond me) issued a statement calling the appointment a "defeat for reason and logic" on the grounds that Alexia Kelley was allegedly pro-life. This prompted a response from James Salt of Catholics United accusing Catholics for Choice of "joining the far right" in launching vicious unfounded smears against Kelley (the statement was posted on the Catholics United website, but has since been removed), after which Kissling herself joined the fray. Jack Smith wrote an excellent piece covering Kissling's confused response on The Catholic Key blog.
Two things strike me as humorous in this entire exchange. First is the mistaken notion that Alexia Kelley - or anyone else involved with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United - holds pro-life views. The two entities hold themselves out as pro-life, but consistently support pro-abortion politicians. Not only that, they quite viciously attack pro-life politicians who dare oppose their candidates and office-holders of choice. They pay a great deal of lip service to supporting politicians who "work to reduce the number of abortions," yet studiously avoid supporting a single politician who advocates the one action guaranteed to reduce the number of abortions: namely, making abortion illegal.
The second thing is this: there is no unity in heresy or apostasy. Unity comes only through adherence to the truth. Dissenting groups tend to fall under large umbrella organizations, and the best-known dissenters tend to be involved in multiple groups. There is so much overlap that, generally speaking, one dissident organization is indistinguishable from another. But having so many different group names creates the impression that the movement of dissent is far bigger than it really is. The virtually identical natures of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United are but one example. In that sense, such groups are rightly considered unified, and they certainly do organize together in most of their endeavors to create the illusion of larger numbers for their projects.
However, each dissident group - while generally supportive of the overall agenda of dismantling the hierarchical nature of the Church and replacing it with a faux democracy steeped in the values of moral relativism - tends to embrace one or two pet causes, whether it be promoting abortion, contraception, the acceptance of homosexual behavior, liberation theology, etc. It happens in rare occasions that one or more of those causes come into direct conflict, and that is what happened here. Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United promotes itself as pro-life in order to gain support among poorly informed but well-meaning Catholics for its aggressive pursuit of a socialist form of government. In doing this, they ran afoul of Catholics for (a Free) Choice, which has in the past compared the Vatican to the Taliban for its supposed oppression of women because of its pro-life positions (and yes, they made this comparison with a straight face, which should give you some insight as to just how disturbingly demonic the ideology of this group truly is). When Catholics for (a Free) Choice hears anyone identify themselves as pro-life, they don't check to verify the authenticity of the claim. They instead fly into full-blown panic mode at the prospect that such individuals will save the life of even one unborn child with their policy decisions. And so a dishonest pretension by Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United led to an amusing side show that left egg on the faces of two different dissident factions.
One other thing I've noticed is just how selective Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United is in its criticisms. Catholics for (a Free) Choice is at least consistent in that it will bash anyone who expresses the slightest concern for the plight of the unborn, however sick and disturbing such an approach may be. Catholics United, on the other hand, claims to champion the cause of peace and justice, but only ever seems to criticize the pro-life movement, those who criticize Barack Obama, and those who dare criticize any of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United's core members. They also made it a point to "lament" the murder of Dr. George Tiller, but it seems they only did this as an excuse to take a pot shot at the pro-life movement. Yet when it comes to things like speaking out in support of the oppressed people in Iran, denouncing the slave trade in the Sudan, or addressing human rights abuses in China, all you hear are crickets chirping. I guess Obama needs to address those issues first, so Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United can receive their talking points from him - or rather, his teleprompter.
Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which also happened since my last blog post, I will share two statements I issued on my Facebook page concerning the incident. Besides expressing my utter disgust with how the Obama administration has chosen to use this tragedy as a means of marginalizing the pro-life movement, I will let these two statements reflect my thoughts on the matter until new developments arise:
"George Tiller's murder was certainly beyond the pale, but so is using that murder as an excuse to score cheap political points at the pro-life movement's expense."
"The murder of George Tiller was an atrocity. It was morally unjustifiable, and I will have words with anyone who says otherwise. But let no one dare insult my intelligence by pretending he is a martyr for humanitarian causes. There are approximately 60,000 reasons why I vehemently beg to differ."
Lastly, to those of you who have sent me e-mails regarding my blog, I'd like to say thank you. Even though I have not had the chance to reply to each of you individually, just know that your comments are appreciated, and I do plan to address some of the issues raised in your e-mails. And no, I am not on Twitter, and don't plan to be at this time, though that might change at a later date. Please keep the feedback coming. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Nevertheless, it has been an eventful few weeks in the world. The events in Iran have especially dominated the news of late. While I express my deepest sympathies and solidarity with the brave Iranians protesting the results of an obviously rigged election, I marvel that people can express shock at the fact that the election was, in fact, rigged. Expressing shock at a fraudulent display of democracy by a murderous dictatorial regime is akin to expressing shock at Keith Olbermann for making a fool of himself. You expect the snake to bite: it's inherent to its nature. As the old adage goes: "Never trust a snake." And while this world has more than its fair share of snakes - and more than its fair share of them in positions of power - few are more adept at crawling on their bellies than Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah Khameini.
On the domestic front, Barack Obama continues to name left fringe crazies to high ranking positions within his administration. Two recent examples especially stand out in this regard. On the education front, he has very quietly nominated militant gay activist Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings has a long track record of trying to push a sexually deviant agenda through the public school system, and is a vocal advocate of homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. More on the nomination - and Obama's general use of the press to divert attention away from his prolific nomination of radical leftists to key government posts - can be found in this great Townhall piece by Kevin McCullough.
The second nomination that caught my eye has been the subject of a rather humorous subplot in the past few weeks. Alexia Kelley, who is one of the core members of the apostate left wing front group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed by Obama as Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (Kelley, by the way, is the fourth person associated with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United to be appointed by Obama to a government post, and all 4 appointments are widely recognized as political payback for help during Obama's presidential campaign. Yet Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United laughably continue to hold themselves out as nonpartisan entities). The humor arises from the fact that shortly after the appointment was made, John O'Brien, successor to the semi-retired and hardly lamented Frances Kissling as head of the militantly pro-abortion and bitterly anti-Catholic group Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice. Why these groups think that name changes will rehabilitate their images is really quite beyond me) issued a statement calling the appointment a "defeat for reason and logic" on the grounds that Alexia Kelley was allegedly pro-life. This prompted a response from James Salt of Catholics United accusing Catholics for Choice of "joining the far right" in launching vicious unfounded smears against Kelley (the statement was posted on the Catholics United website, but has since been removed), after which Kissling herself joined the fray. Jack Smith wrote an excellent piece covering Kissling's confused response on The Catholic Key blog.
Two things strike me as humorous in this entire exchange. First is the mistaken notion that Alexia Kelley - or anyone else involved with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United - holds pro-life views. The two entities hold themselves out as pro-life, but consistently support pro-abortion politicians. Not only that, they quite viciously attack pro-life politicians who dare oppose their candidates and office-holders of choice. They pay a great deal of lip service to supporting politicians who "work to reduce the number of abortions," yet studiously avoid supporting a single politician who advocates the one action guaranteed to reduce the number of abortions: namely, making abortion illegal.
The second thing is this: there is no unity in heresy or apostasy. Unity comes only through adherence to the truth. Dissenting groups tend to fall under large umbrella organizations, and the best-known dissenters tend to be involved in multiple groups. There is so much overlap that, generally speaking, one dissident organization is indistinguishable from another. But having so many different group names creates the impression that the movement of dissent is far bigger than it really is. The virtually identical natures of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United are but one example. In that sense, such groups are rightly considered unified, and they certainly do organize together in most of their endeavors to create the illusion of larger numbers for their projects.
However, each dissident group - while generally supportive of the overall agenda of dismantling the hierarchical nature of the Church and replacing it with a faux democracy steeped in the values of moral relativism - tends to embrace one or two pet causes, whether it be promoting abortion, contraception, the acceptance of homosexual behavior, liberation theology, etc. It happens in rare occasions that one or more of those causes come into direct conflict, and that is what happened here. Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United promotes itself as pro-life in order to gain support among poorly informed but well-meaning Catholics for its aggressive pursuit of a socialist form of government. In doing this, they ran afoul of Catholics for (a Free) Choice, which has in the past compared the Vatican to the Taliban for its supposed oppression of women because of its pro-life positions (and yes, they made this comparison with a straight face, which should give you some insight as to just how disturbingly demonic the ideology of this group truly is). When Catholics for (a Free) Choice hears anyone identify themselves as pro-life, they don't check to verify the authenticity of the claim. They instead fly into full-blown panic mode at the prospect that such individuals will save the life of even one unborn child with their policy decisions. And so a dishonest pretension by Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United led to an amusing side show that left egg on the faces of two different dissident factions.
One other thing I've noticed is just how selective Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United is in its criticisms. Catholics for (a Free) Choice is at least consistent in that it will bash anyone who expresses the slightest concern for the plight of the unborn, however sick and disturbing such an approach may be. Catholics United, on the other hand, claims to champion the cause of peace and justice, but only ever seems to criticize the pro-life movement, those who criticize Barack Obama, and those who dare criticize any of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United's core members. They also made it a point to "lament" the murder of Dr. George Tiller, but it seems they only did this as an excuse to take a pot shot at the pro-life movement. Yet when it comes to things like speaking out in support of the oppressed people in Iran, denouncing the slave trade in the Sudan, or addressing human rights abuses in China, all you hear are crickets chirping. I guess Obama needs to address those issues first, so Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United can receive their talking points from him - or rather, his teleprompter.
Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which also happened since my last blog post, I will share two statements I issued on my Facebook page concerning the incident. Besides expressing my utter disgust with how the Obama administration has chosen to use this tragedy as a means of marginalizing the pro-life movement, I will let these two statements reflect my thoughts on the matter until new developments arise:
"George Tiller's murder was certainly beyond the pale, but so is using that murder as an excuse to score cheap political points at the pro-life movement's expense."
"The murder of George Tiller was an atrocity. It was morally unjustifiable, and I will have words with anyone who says otherwise. But let no one dare insult my intelligence by pretending he is a martyr for humanitarian causes. There are approximately 60,000 reasons why I vehemently beg to differ."
Lastly, to those of you who have sent me e-mails regarding my blog, I'd like to say thank you. Even though I have not had the chance to reply to each of you individually, just know that your comments are appreciated, and I do plan to address some of the issues raised in your e-mails. And no, I am not on Twitter, and don't plan to be at this time, though that might change at a later date. Please keep the feedback coming. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Fruits Of The Watering Down Of The Catholic Faith At Catholic Universities In The Name Of "Tolerance" and "Dialogue"...
...speak for themselves.
Congratulations. Fr. Jenkins. It looks like you found the common moral ground you so desperately sought with Obama.
Congratulations. Fr. Jenkins. It looks like you found the common moral ground you so desperately sought with Obama.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
State of Connecticut Resumes Efforts To Deny First Amendment Rights To Catholics
Great article by Drew Zahn posted on World Net Daily regarding the state of Connecticut's attempts to portray the Catholic Church's right to peacefully assemble as a violation of state lobbying laws. It appears that the state government will not soon abandon its war on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.
For some further background on this subject, please read my previous post on the subject.
In trying to destroy the moral fiber of a country by promoting a culture of death and attacking the institution of marriage, a necessary first step is to drown out the voices of those who would call attention to such attempts. Connecticut would make Saul Alinsky proud. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
For some further background on this subject, please read my previous post on the subject.
In trying to destroy the moral fiber of a country by promoting a culture of death and attacking the institution of marriage, a necessary first step is to drown out the voices of those who would call attention to such attempts. Connecticut would make Saul Alinsky proud. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
