Cardinals and Sistine Chapel: Preparing for the Conclave

Cardinals gather at Vatican, begin election process

Cardinals pray for Conclave

Preparing for the papal election

Preparing Sistine Chapel for Conclave

preparing the Sistine Chapel for the vote

Read Full Post »

Fr. Frank Pavone – Pro-Life Straight Talk

Read Full Post »

Undercover Investigations Reveal Voter Fraud

Here are two videos showing election fraud at the Organizing For America Headquarters.

 

 

 

Here the field director of Jim Moran’s(D-VA) campaign conspires to commit voter fraud, forge documents.

H/T Project Veritas

 

Voter fraud exists. And it isn’t a small problem or as small as Democrats would have you believe. Conservatives are not exaggerating about the amount of voter fraud occurring in the U.S. It is pervasive across this country. To ensure fair elections voter fraud needs to be stopped.  Voter I.D. bills need to be enacted and existing voter I.D. laws need to be enforced.

Read Full Post »

Top 5 Reasons To Vote For Romney Ryan

I found this fantastic video at Maggie’s Notebook via the post titled Top 5 Reasons To Vote For Romney Ryan Video It’s Serious Stuff and “Pure Awesome”.   She found the video at Chicks on the Right.

Read Full Post »

Courageous Priest: We Already Have Our “Share of Dumb Priests” . . . Must Catholic Voters Join Them?

This article is from the Courageous Priest site.  This was simply too good not to share.  

Fr. John Hollowell: Revealing the Truth That Every
Catholic Voter Must Know Before Voting

By Fr. John Hollowell: Especially when we were in the midst of lots of academic work, my rector in the seminary would often remind us that “the world already has its share of dumb priests…it can’t afford anymore.” It was a joke. Kind of.

We have also reached our quota of uninformed (or wrongly informed) Catholic voters and it is key that we begin to reverse the trend.

Yesterday, I listened to a VERY important show that I hope every Catholic listens to or watches during this election season. The show presents both sides of the argument that Catholics have. Both sides of the debate are presented very articulately and clearly, and in a way that you rarely see in the same place.

In the first interview of this week’s World Over Live, Raymond Arroyo interviews Stephen Schenk, the President of Catholics for Obama, a professor at Catholic University of America. Following that interview, Arroyo turns around and interviews Bishop Robert Morlino.

The two opposing political philosophies that Catholics bring to the voting booth are laid out clearly. I actually think Arroyo could have done a bit better in the interview with Schenk because Schenk was very clear on the one point that he was making, and Arroyo seemed to struggle to grasp it. The position that Schenk outlines is side 1:

Here is Position 1

“I, as a Catholic, lament the redefinition of marriage, I lament embryonic stem cell research, I lament abortion on demand regardless of ability to pay, I lament the attacks on religious freedom…

BUT…

if someone will do what I determine to be a better job of caring for the poor, that outweighs all the stuff I just mentioned because if there is less poverty, the other stuff will diminish.”

That is position 1. Some people taking position 1 will substitute either support for the death penalty or support for a specific war as justification for voting for a candidate in support of intrinsic evils.

A couple of questions I wish Arroyo had asked Schenk:
1) “So, Professor Schenk, you feel like cuts to programs for the poor of our country will lower abortion rates. How will leaving such programs for the poor in place reduce embryonic stem cell research or push back against the redefinition of marriage?”

2) “Professor Schenk, you acknowledge that the Democrats ignore every aspect of the pro-life agenda. How is continuing to vote for those who oppose every element of the pro-life platform going to send a message? Wouldn’t NOT voting for such people send a stronger message than continuing to vote for them?”

One of the things I think Arroyo nailed was when he played the clip of Bishop Lori saying essentially that a Catholic can’t vote for someone who supports abortion, embryonic stem cell research, the redefinition of marriage, etc. Schenk’s line was something like, “Well, I know Bishop Lori well, he baptized my kids, he’s one of my favorite prelates, but with all do respect he’s offering his opinion.”

Bishop Lori isn’t spouting his opinion, he’s reciting Church teaching. Schenk very clearly demonstrates the ease with which many Catholics today simply dismiss the teaching of their bishops and instead create from scratch their own Church, their own doctrines, and they make themselves bishop of their own world. Schenk’s dismissal of Archbishop Lori sounded like a guy dismissing the advice of a drinking buddy on how to bet on an upcoming NFL game.

Here is Position 2

Anyway, on to side 2. Bishop Morlino is the second half of the show, and is also worth the watch. He comes out and cogently, pastorally, and succinctly answers Schenk (and all in his camp’s) argument that there are non intrinsic evils that can outweigh intrinsic evils.

WATCH the video

I’m on my knees begging you to watch it. Fast forward through the first 10 minutes to watch Schenk’s interview and then stick around and watch Bishop Morlino’s interview will be worth the investment.

The average Youtube viewer tunes out after a minute and a half. I urge you to spend 30 minutes and watch both interviews in their entirety. And then send this video to others and encourage them to watch it. Engage Catholics in this discussion. Because we already have our share of uninformed Catholic voters.

My Comment:  I just finished watching the 30 minutes worth of interviews. It was well worth my time to see the two interviews for that length of time. I am urging all Christians but especially Catholics, to take 30 minutes out of your day and watch the two interviews.  

My Thoughts: Professor Schenk wants us to believe that voting for a candidate who promotes not only one but 5 intrinsic evils – violating citizens right to religious liberty, euthanasia, abortion, gay “marriage”, and embryonic stem cell research which are issues that are non-negotiables, not matters of prudential judgement – is not only morally licit but morally superior than voting for a candidate who does not promote any of these intrinsic evils but has an economic policy which is a matter of prudential judgement? So in effect Schenk is saying ignore the teachings of the Catholic Church. To this I say hogwash!!! As Catholics we are called to follow the teachings of the Church. We are not to simply toss them aside and make-believe that matters which are non-negotiable can be haggled with in order to vote for an issue which is a matter of prudential judgment. He is wrongly giving more weight of importance to the negotiables than the non-negotiables. Bargaining with your conscience opens the door to Satan. We must resist bargaining with our consciences. We must resist the devil and all his evil ways. Bishop Morlino did a great job of outlining the intrinsic evils and explaining the difference between those issues and ones where prudential judgment can be employed. He was spot on! He was true to the Faith. God Bless him. 

Read Full Post »

With the Supreme Court Decisions This Week is the Shining City upon a Hill Fading?

First came the horrid Supreme Court decision on the Arizona law at the beginning of this week and now heaven help us with the latest horrendous Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.  Most of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law was struck down and Obamacare in its totality was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Both decisions are catastrophic for the cause of liberty.

The ruling on the Arizona law SB1070 was a devastating blow to states’ rights.  Plus, the one part of the law which was upheld the Obama administration made it abundantly clear that they  are unwilling to follow the rule of law and work with Arizona.  Basically the Obama administration and the Supreme Court let Arizona know that the state is on its own.  They are saying to Arizona: “You are not allowed to deal with the issue of illegal immigration even though there is a law on the books against coming to the USA the improper way and we are unwilling to enforce those laws since the more immigrants who cross the border the better it is for the Democrat Party.  To heck with the laws of the land.  We only will enforce the one’s we agree with.”

I haven’t read Justice Antonin Scalia’s entire dissenting opinion on the Arizona decision but the paragraphs that I have read are spot on.

From Yahoo:

The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administra­tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act,” Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.

“Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?” Scalia asked. Later, he added: “What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that ‘federal policies’ of nonen­forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration.”

The federal government “does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”

 

When I heard the news that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare let’s just say I was in shock and couldn’t believe it at first.  Especially since they didn’t strike down the insurance mandate.  Then when I was told that the justices who voted to uphold Obamacare inserted their own arguments in order so the law would be considered constitutional I became furious.  They rejected Obama’s lawyer’s arguments and inserted their own so that the law would be considered constitutional.  Obama argued that the penalty wasn’t a tax.  But the Supreme Court justices who upheld Obamacare made the case for the Obama govt. that the fine is a really a tax.  Geesh.  That doesn’t make sense.  Is definitely absurd.

Is this another nail in liberty’s coffin?  With Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas’s dissent in voting to strike down Obamacare they stood for liberty and followed the Constitution as our Founding Father’s instituted it in our nation.  The justices who upheld Obamacare did not follow the Constitution as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  They are okay with interpreting the Constitution in their own way and remaking America into a different America which is less free with federal expansion and overreach into our lives.   Unfortunately the transformation of America into some socialists wet dream is taking place.  Sadly, that “shining city upon a hill whose beacon of light which guides freedom-loving people everywhere” as Ronald Reagan described the United States in his farewell address to the nation is dimming…. fading…. and quickly.   We have very little time to stop this nation from going further down the dark abyss of tyranny.  Both decisions, but especially the Obamacare decision, makes it an apparent necessity for citizens to vote out the big government freedom-hating Obama.  Libertarians, conservatives, independents, republicans, and democrats who love liberty must vote for Mitt Romney to stem the bleeding and start the recovery process to regain lost liberties.

Read Full Post »

Catholics at the Voting Booth and the Test of Fire

This video highlights that the cornerstone of the rights and our most cherished freedoms  – the Constitution – is under attack more pervasively than ever, openly being targeted by the Obama administration.  This is the first time in American history that our constitutional rights have been put in as grave jeopardy as they are now.  One of these most cherished rights is the right to religious freedom and the Obama admin is trying to nullify these rights which are guaranteed by our Creator, specifically the right for Catholics to believe and actively live out the tenets of the Catholic Church, by using coercion to force the faithful to abandon our non-negotiable doctrinal beliefs effectively saying to hell with your conscience.

This Catholic political ad promotes pro-life values such as refraining from voting for those politicians which support abortion and euthanasia which are in accordance with Catholic precepts.  The video does not focus on those issues where a Catholic may use their prudential judgement, such as how we assist the poor whether we believe the private sector or government does it best, environmental concerns, immigration policy or those facets which involve war.  These matters are not obligatory so therefore these issues should not be allowed to carry undue weight when considering whether to for vote for a particular candidate at the expense of the non-negotiable issue of life.   Unfortunately, we have laity these days who treat matters of prudential judgement as if they were doctrine and vice versa.

Question: How could any Catholic morally justify voting for Obama, the Democratic candidate, when his administration has consistently attacked the Catholic Church, and is threatening to undermine Her core beliefs via the HHS mandate, and when he is the most pro-abortion president in the history of our Republic who supports gay “marriage”,  and has been thumbing his nose at the Constitution at every turn?   Wouldn’t a vote for Obama be a vote against the Catholic Church?  Our rights are crumbling from the inside out due to policies being initiated by the Obama administration, just as Alexis de Toqueville warned this nation to avoid so many years ago, so how any person of sound mind but especially Catholics of conscience could possibly think that it is morally licit to vote for Obama (or any Democrat) is beyond me.

If Catholics can actually justify in their minds that it is okay to vote for Obama when he supports unjust laws, pure unadulterated evil, and is openly attacking the Church then what we have is a sad state of affairs regarding the Church my friends.  I wonder if these people would have justified voting for a certain WWII German Chancellor because he was a friend to organized labor, being the candidate of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party?   Would they have been “Personally Opposed But” about the Final Solution?

Here in America the systematic slaughter of unborn babies has by far surpassed the number of people who were killed during the Holocaust.  Even with the knowledge of that fact Catholics keep on voting for Democrat candidates who support the murder of innocent human beings.  Many citizens treat abortion as a side issue, as almost nonexistent since they are unable to see and tangibly touch these human beings in the physical here and now since they are hidden away within another human’s body but instead they give the visible,tangible poor much more consideration when they step into that voting booth.  Since quite a few Catholics today have followed a moral relativistic Hear No Evil See No Evil mentality I wonder had these same people been alive during the 1930’s and 1940’s would they have ignored those Holocaust victims who were also hidden away from public viewing?

TO ALL CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY CATHOLICS: Are you going to sit idly by and allow our sacred rights to drift off into the sunset, or even worse vote for the Party of Death, the tyrannical anti-freedom party, the party which has displayed anti-Catholic bigotry through their various policies or are you going to be a light in this period of darkness, a soldier in St. Michael the Archangel’s army and stand up for the Catholic Church with all of Her goodness stand up to the test of fire?

Read Full Post »

A Little Philosophy: Voting and Consequentialism

We are now in the midst of the Republican presidential primary. I have been paying attention to the various candidates and their political positions and am thoughtfully considering which of the candidates I will support in the GOP presidential primary. The winner of the Republican presidential primary will take on the Democratic Presidential nominee and possibly a Third Party candidate. The voters will then have to make the decision with their consciences of whether and for whom to vote.

While voting in and of itself is not intrinsically evil are people (catholics) who vote for pro-abortion politicians because of their stances on other social issues consequentialists? That is, are they implicitly, and perhaps inadvertently, accepting a consequentialist moral philosophy?

Consequentialism is the belief that the consequences are the one defining element that determines the moral value of any action. Consequentialists exclude the fact of the intrinsic ethical character of actions which precipitate their ends. They deny that actions have a moral weight of their own.

To put the question more succinctly, is it intrinsically evil to vote for politicians who support the right to choose abortion?

To address an anticipated criticism – namely, the claim that since it is not intrinsically evil to vote, it therefore cannot be intrinsically evil to vote for this person or that one, I reply as follows:

While voting in and of itself is morally neutral we as Catholics have an obligation to avoid voting for someone in particular who supports an intrinsic evil such as abortion. Our pontiff has made it known that there are certain issues which are non-negotiable. Voting per se is not intrinsically evil. But to vote is to vote for someone. No one casts a generic ballot with no name on it. That would not even be a vote at all. So generic voting is a mere abstraction, not an act. The act is always voting for this person or that one. Therefore the choice to vote for a particular candidate may be intrinsically evil depending on the candidate and his or her positions. Abortion is one of the aforementioned non-negotiables. It is intrinsically evil. Voting for someone who supports abortion (especially if there is a moral alternative) necessarily entails supporting abortion, an intrinsic evil. Therefore voting for someone who supports abortion as a “right” is intrinsically evil.

Now you know what I think. Where do you stand?

Read Full Post »