Posts Tagged With: Republican

Split Ticket?

Posted on October 27, 2012 by DN

 

I am actually having a difficult time deciding how to vote in all of the races this election season, which is the reason that I haven’t voted early yet in North Dakota.

1. President

This one is easy. Which candidate is in favor of the violation of the first amendment right to exercise religion freely? Which candidate is the most anti-life candidate to ever be on the ticket? Which candidate has become a bully towards those who oppose taxpayer funded abortion on demand? Which candidate has legally forced the Catholic Church to violate her conscience or drop health care for their employees or be in contempt of the law? Which candidate promised four years ago to reach across the aisle, but has only demonized all opposition to his agenda? Which candidate has refused to enforce the laws of the United States despite his Constitutional requirement to enforce laws like DOMA? Which candidate views women as the sum of their reproductive parts and pretty much expects them all to be sex machines that should logically vote for the man who promises free contraception?

I could go on. But it is clear that Barack Obama is the candidate that fits the bill here. Barack Obama is not a choice for any freedom loving American who believes in the right of individuals to not just believe their religion, but to practice it to, as is their Constitutional right. Any American who believes that each American is an individual and might not want to be told what to think based upon their sexual parts, should be offended at the way Obama treats female voters.

While he may not be the top choice of all contenders, Mitt Romney is the only one who can beat President Obama, and remove him from office. A vote for any other candidate is one less viable vote against the President.

2. US Senate

This is where I truly become an undecided voter. In North Dakota we have two options: Heidi Heitkamp (D) and Rick Berg (R). Berg is currently our US Representative and seems like a nice guy, I originally was going to support him. I was adamantly opposed to Heitkamp due to her praise of Obama and her support of his policies. However, there is a scandal involving Berg and a local property management company that I am very confused about and it appears that Berg could be or is lying about his involvement with the company and that makes me begin to distrust him a little. Heitkamp also seems less scary to me in that while she isn’t in support of a full repeal of Obamacare, she does want to give it a facelift. What that involves, I’m not sure about.

On some of the issues that are important, Berg has given emphatic statements: he is opposed to federally funded abortions, and to the HHS mandate, and is in favor of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment. Heitkamp has remained pretty silent on these issues. On local issues, I sort of give Heitkamp in edge in that she favors the building of a new oil refinery in North Dakota so that we can keep more of the profits from our oil boom in North Dakota, Berg opposed this. Of course the refinery would come from federal dollars, and I’m not a fan of increasing our federal spending, so all in all, I think that Berg and Heitkamp come out in a dead heat when I ignore all the partisan attack ads. So how do I decide?

In the end, Democrats have a small majority over Republicans in the Senate, and this majority has done very little to help our nation. Over three years without passing a budget and a refusal to repeal the unconstitutional healthcare law worries me. A Republican majority is necessary to accomplish what needs to get done. If the Republicans win a majority it will be a very slim majority, so every candidate and every vote counts, and I’m not sure that Heidi will do what needs to be done on the issues that matter the most, so in the end I will probably vote Berg because I know he will vote to repeal Obamacare, and will vote on a balanced budget.

3. US House

Pam Gulleson (D) and Kevin Cramer (R) are both running for North Dakota’s one at-large district, and to be honest I know very little about the candidates, as there hasn’t seemed to be much hardcore campaigning by either candidate because the Senate Race is overshadowing this race. All I know is that like the Senate Race, the Republican has made definitive statements on the issues that matter most to me, while the Democrat has remained silent. I also know that both candidates have been rated favorably by the NRA, so they both seem to like the second amendment. I also don’t expect the Republicans to lose control of the House of Representatives, even if North Dakota’s one seat went back to Democrats. I also don’t see Gulleson winning the election anyways, as the last polls I saw, Cramer had the advantage, so it probably won’t matter anyway how I vote in this race, I might as well flip a coin.

4. State Ballot Measures

We have five measures on the ballot in North Dakota. The first is the elimination of the constitutional provision allowing the state to charge a poll tax. The state hasn’t charged the tax in a long time, so we might as well get rid of it, pretty non-controversial. The second measure adds a constitutional mandate for all elected officials to take an oath of office, something that overlooked when we became a state. Again, this is a non-controversial measure I will support. The third is a measure supporting the perpetual right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming techniques and practices. As a non-farmer it is really hard to know what this measure might mean. I am inclined to either support the initiative or abstain entirely. The fourth is a controversial measure that would enact a statewide no-smoking ban in all public places and work areas. As a non-smoker who is irritated by cigarette smoke, I am not going to support this measure. I think that this is a decision best left to local jurisdictions. A few North Dakota cities have already enacted their own bans because it is what people want. I don’t think it is right for the large population centers of our state to dictate that a small bar in Po’dunk, North Dakota can’t allow people to smoke. I also think that business owners have a right to run their businesses as they see fit. If they want to allow people to smoke inside that is their right and it is the consumer’s and worker’s right to not shop or work there. The fifth measure makes it a felony to abuse animals. It has protections for farmers, ranchers, and hunters and basically applies only to dogs, cats, and horses, but I am not supporting this measure. I don’t abuse my animals and I never have and I never will and I don’t support animal abuse. But I find it repugnant that it would be a felony to kick a dog, but is perfectly legal to dismember a child in discard it like it is yesterday’s trash. Until it is a felony to kill any member of our own species, I will not support an animal rights bill…EVER.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Free Speech, Free Press, Freedom to Exercise Religion, First Amendment, Assumptions, Intolerance, Anger, Sadness, Bullied

Posted on September 7, 2012 by DN

 

This is the post that I just can’t make up my mind about the title. All I can say is that its begun.

Yesterday I had this meeting added to my work calendar that just said “Diversity Discussion”. It was with my boss’s boss, my grandboss if you will. I thought it was an entire department thing. But as I showed up and it was just me, my boss, and my grandboss, I knew that something was wrong.

My grandboss assured me that I wasn’t in trouble, but it sure felt that way as I was showed an innocent post I had made a few weeks ago on a public forum in which I defended a local newspaper’s right to not publish same-sex “marriage” announcements under the protection of the First Amendment, as well as all of our rights to the freedom of speech and the freedom to exercise religion. Another staff member had seen my comments and immediately assumed that because I am a conservative Christian who holds to the time-tested view of marriage as well as the Constitutional freedoms we are supposed to enjoy in America, that I must be intolerant. How offensive. I was glad to find out that both my boss and grandboss have been defending that crap out of my rights as an American to hold and express my views and that just because I hold these view does not mean that I am intolerant or discriminatory towards my students, in fact, my life expresses the contrary.

First of all, my Faith demands that I treat all people with dignity and respect, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, religion, wealth, sexual activity, language, disability, or political beliefs. Underneath all of that is a soul created by God, created for God, and I must recognize that. I do recognize that, and have never treated someone differently because of those things.

Second, because of my faith, I do not define people by things like sexual orientation, race, class, or creed. In fact one of my best friends for the last two years of my college education was gay. I knew he was gay. He knew I was Catholic. It didn’t matter. In fact it didn’t matter so much that we even chose to be roommates. It didn’t bother me one bit. What actually bothered me were some of my fellow Catholics who made snide remarks about how I needed to make sure that I always locked the bathroom door when I was in the shower or how I would have to basically cover as much skin as a nun so that he couldn’t ogle me. THAT was offensive.

The bottom line is that we don’t have to see eye-to-eye in order to get along or to treat each other with respect. I don’t have to support all of someone’s actions in order to support them. I don’t have to be supportive of so-called same-sex marriage in order to be supportive of the LGBT community.

But some people just can’t grasp that and would automatically assume that I am as intolerant of them as they are of my religious freedom. And rather than call me up to have a mature discussion they “report” me to my supervisors. It was only a matter of time before my faith and my job collided, and I sensed it was coming soon, and so for the last few days and for the coming indefinite future I am actively searching for a new job.

Categories: America, Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Catholics and Christians Need to Vote Republican in November

Posted on August 29, 2012 by DN

 

Repost from Catholic in the Ozarks.

In my last essay I explained why I (a Catholic) tend to vote Republican, instead of Democrat, as of late.  At one time the Democratic Party was the way to go.  Had I been around in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and maybe even early 70s, I probably would have voted Democrat straight down the ballot.  There have been a few times I’ve been tempted to vote straight ticket Democrat since becoming Catholic, and I will admit to have voted for a few Democrats (here and there) when they ascribe to the Church’s social teachings on the sanctity of life and marriage.  However, for the most part, I vote Republican, and it’s not because I want to.  As I pointed out in my previous essay on this topic, it all comes down to the fact that I am a Roman Catholic by faith, Anglican Use by tradition, and a big believer in the social teachings of the Church.  So politically speaking, I am a Traditionalist.  I believe in Christendom as the foundation of Western civilisation, and I want Christendom preserved (even restored) as much as possible.  The problem with the Republicans (paleoliberals) and Democrats (neoliberals) is that they both cherry pick the virtues of Christendom, and by doing so, they erode the very foundation of Western civilisation.  However, the Republicans (paleoliberals) tend to cherry pick it a little less so, and while they don’t do enough to support it, they are not actively working to undermine it either.  This, in effect, makes them the lesser of two evils — for now.

I would certainly love to see the Democratic Party start running truly Pro-Life and Pro-Family candidates again.  You can bet your bottom dollar, that if they did, I would surely vote for them.  I prefer the Democrat support of labour unions, solidarity with the poor and fair (not “free”) trade agreements.  I also prefer the traditional Democratic support (and aggressive implementation) of antitrust laws.  All of these things help create a distributed economy, improve upward mobility and strengthen American families.  In recent years however, Democrats have gone soft on these key issues, and instead turned toward an agenda that is so shocking (indeed horrifying) that I cannot support them so long as they continue down this course.  The Democratic Party has become the single greatest supporter of abortion-on-demand in this nation.  The pro-abortion lobby (consisting of, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL) literally has the Democratic Party in a choke hold of which it seemingly cannot get out.  The teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% crystal clear.  Abortion is murder and Catholics may not support it.  It is a mortal sin, and a grave intrinsic evil.  Those who knowingly and deliberately support politicians and policies that allow it, when there is a pro-life option available, provide material cooperation in evil and therefore commit a mortal sin.  As if that were not bad enough, the Democratic Party (both states and national) has also provided political support for embryonic and foetal stem-cell research, which again calls for the murder of pre-born children.  The Democratic Party has not yet provided wholesale support for euthanasia or human cloning, but based on their trajectory so far, I think we can see where this is going.  So disturbing is the Democratic Party’s actions in these matters, that it has caused Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura (the Catholic Church’s Supreme Court), to say the U.S. Democratic Party is steadily becoming the “party of death” in America.  These are just issues related to human life.  Now we have the Democratic Party supporting the clear destruction of the human family.  Supporters of gay-marriage have found a welcome home within the Democratic Party, as well as plenty of support from Democratic politicians, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.  Now the Democratic National Party is expected to approve a “marriage equality” plank as part of its national platform during their national convention (September 4-6, 2012).  When approved, the Democratic Party will OFFICIALLY become the party of gay-marriage.  Once again, the teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% crystal clear.  Holy Matrimony is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and civil marriage is the state’s recognition of that sacrament designed to promote healthy families and child welfare.  Catholics are not permitted to support gay-marriage either privately or publicly.  That’s not my teaching.  It’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.  If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with the pope.  The U.S. Catholic bishops have urged a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay-marriage in the United States.  Catholics should support their bishops on this, but the Democratic Party would now seem to be directly opposed to the bishops on this.  These things, the issues of human life and human family, have effectively turned the Democratic Party against Catholicism on the most fundamental issues of our time, which will effect the future of Western civilisation for generations to come.  When a political party opposes Catholicism, in my book, that political party opposes me.  It’s not just politics.  It’s personal.

These are the underlying issues that highlight why the Democratic Party has become a neoliberal organisation that is cherry picking the virtues of Christendom to the point of social collapse. We may not see that social collapse come immediately.  These things usually take time, but once the dominoes start to fall, there will be no stopping them.  The day will come eventually, when they will all come down.  One would think this is bad enough, but wait, there is more.

The ultimate insult to injury came on January 20, 2012, when Kathleen Sebelius (Barack Obama’s Secretary to Health and Human Services) announced that religious and nonprofit groups must provide medical insurance that covers contraception, sterilisation and chemical abortion.  After outrage expressed by the U.S. Catholic bishops, Barack Obama himself did some political manoeuvring that  effectively changed nothing.  Religious and nonprofit organisations still have to pay for medical insurance that covers contraception, sterilisation and chemical abortion.  This is effectively a slap in the face to religious freedom in America.  It effectively says, “you can believe whatever you like, but you can’t act on it.”  In America, Freedom of Religion has always been understood as existing in two parts: 1.) Freedom of Worship, which means you can worship any way you like, and 2.) Freedom of Conscience, which means you can allow you religion to affect your behaviour.  That means if you find something morally objectionable, based on your religious beliefs, you don’t have to participate.  Likewise, if you find something morally necessary, based on your religious beliefs, you are free to go about it.  Barack Obama, with his HHS Mandate, is trying to strike down the second part of Religious Freedom — the Freedom of Conscience.

This is unacceptable on every level.  It doesn’t just violate the rights of Catholics, but it violates the rights of every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the United States!  There are multiple lawsuits filed against the Obama administration all over the country in regards to this.  The matter will likely end up in the United States Supreme Court.  Regardless of the justices’ decision on this however, even if they decide to strike the HHS Mandate down, we have a glimpse into the character of the man who now sits in the Oval Office.  He has no respect for religious freedom or the rights of religious people.  He has also shown contempt for the largest Christian organisation in the United States, the Catholic Church, by dismissing the bishops’ concerns and showing no sympathy for their grievance.  Even worse, our Catholic priests and bishops are now in physical danger.  Once fully implemented, the HHS Mandate will have the full force of law, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have openly said they will not comply.  What does this mean for them?  Will our clergy be subject to fines and perhaps time in prison!?!  No word has been given yet as to the methods of enforcement the Obama administration will pursue, but it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out that when you violate federal law, the penalties are usually pretty stiff.

Enough is enough!  To Barack Obama I say this. You disrespect my Catholic religion, you disrespect my priests and bishops, then you get no respect from me. I will vote for the Mormon.

That’s right, I will vote for Willard “Mitt” Romney for president of the United States.  It’s not because I particularly like him.  It’s not because I’m enamoured with his policy proposals or his record, because I’m not.  It’s because as a Mormon, he understands what it’s like to get slapped around over religion.  Now I don’t agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I’m a Catholic for heaven’s sake!  There is nothing about Mormon theology that I care for, and yes, I have read it, and I do understand it.  However, I have Mormons in my extended family and they are good people.  They have never given me any reason to doubt their sincerity or christian charity.  If Mitt Romney is only half as christian as they are, he’ll make a good president.  Romney has also made it clear that he will rescind Obama’s HHS Mandate and make Religious Freedom a top priority in every policy his administration implements.  You know what?  I actually believe him on this.  Why?  Because he’s a Mormon, and he knows exactly what it’s like for his church to be persecuted by the United States federal government.  He knows exactly what it is like to be talked down to, told his faith is a “cult,” and belittled in every way by society at large just because he’s a Mormon.  He understands first hand, what Catholics have been going through in this country since before its founding, because he’s endured pretty much the exact same thing his entire life.  There are many things Mitt Romney says that I don’t believe, but this is not one of them.  He has a PERSONAL interest in this, not just for himself, but for his children and grandchildren.  He also has a long family memory of this.  His family has been persecuted for their faith, both politically and socially, for five generations!  Though he is a Mormon, Mitt Romney has a better understanding of what it’s like to be a Catholic in this country than Barack Obama will ever have.  So that is why this Catholic, and probably many more like me, will vote for a Mormon this November, just in case you were wondering.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Minnesota for Romney?

Posted on August 26, 2012 by DN

 

I saw an election simulator today from Colorado that put my home state of Minnesota in Mitt Romney’s column. It gives Romney a small win over Obama: 320-218. Even in all of my messing around with the electoral map over the last few months, I’ve never been able to give Romney more than 300 electoral votes, or even more than a margin of like 40 votes.

But I believe that this 320-218 is very possible because the simulator has accurately predicted the last eight presidential elections. It would be nice to turn Minnesota, the state with the longest Democratic voting streak (every election since 1976), red on election night.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , ,

The Catholic Case for Romney-Ryan

Posted on August 15, 2012 by DN

 

From The American Catholic:

Fellow Catholics,

We are approaching the most important U.S. Presidential election for us – by “us” I mean theologically orthodox, politically conservative Catholics – possibly since 1960, when the election of the first Catholic president seemed so possible and actually occurred. I’m grateful to be a contributing member of The American Catholic during this election season, which is one of the most widely-read Catholic blogs in the country. This certainly won’t be the last thing I have to say about the presidential race, but rather the first.

When the GOP primary was getting underway, I was a firm Ron Paul supporter. I knew he would not and could not win, but I supported him anyway because I agree with him on most issues, particularly on the role of our government both domestically and abroad. To support Ron Paul was to support the drastic reduction of the federal government, to reject the arrogant assumptions of technocratic management of economic and social issues from the top-down, and to place a vote of confidence in individuals, families, and local governments to solve social and moral problems. I also believe that this is the fundamental political truth of our time: a state governed by militant secularists cannot possibly effect the common good as it is understood by Christians, people of other faiths, or even those secularists who recognize the value of the natural law tradition that has informed the politics of Western civilization since the time of Plato and Aristotle. And yet if we are destined to have secularists in power, we can at least work to limit their power by limiting government as much as possible.

The corollary of the political truth stated above is that one cannot simply discuss “the role of government” in the abstract, without considering who will actually run the state and what values and assumptions they take with them as they create and execute policies with coercive force. Who exactly will be deciding issues that affect your life and mine? Who will have coercive power over you and yours?

More important than what happens to me or my family, though, is how the Church will be affected by those who rule. Even in her most humiliated and rejected state, which the sex scandals have arguably wrought, the Church is still the light of civilization. If her light is extinguished, driven underground, or forced to hide in the shadows, then it is not simply we Catholics who will suffer (though there is certainly nothing wrong with suffering for the faith), but all of society. The Church can and has survived hideous persecution, but it is not clear that society can survive what it will inevitably become without the Church, as well as all of the other religious organizations that will be affected by federal policies, actively involved in public life. Finally, whether society recognizes its debt to the Church or not is irrelevant.

It may be that God has ordained this as a time of cleansing, a time during which the Church must be forced underground and reduced to a smaller size so that she can be tempered and purified. But we cannot know such things with any certainty. What we can know with at least a little more clarity, on the other hand, is what our duties are as Catholic citizens. It is my view that our first priority is to protect the right of the Church to publicly exist. Usually this doesn’t come up because usually the U.S. government does not enact policies that threaten this public existence. But the status quo has changed, and we now face the prospect of an open, vicious anti-Catholic regime in a lame duck Obama presidency. For this reason, I feel obliged as a Catholic to work for the defeat of Obama-Biden in 2012. In practical terms, this means supporting Romeny-Ryan for the Presidency.

 

If I haven’t already made it clear, Romney certainly wouldn’t be my first choice. But after Rick Perry crashed and burned early on in the primaries, it became clear that Romney would be the nominee. I never believed for a moment that Gingrich or Santorum would win the nomination, or Ron Paul for that matter. That a man like Romney represents the GOP is indicative of a number of problems that affect the party and will continue to affect it in the coming decades, but this is hardly relevant now.

I do not look at Romney as a man, but as a representative of the broad coalition of interests that support the GOP and resist the Democrats. I look at Obama in the same way, as a representative of an opposite coalition of interests that support the Democrats and resist the GOP. For better or worse, I believe the Church finds itself out of necessity in the GOP coalition.

The reason why is obvious. Put aside the academic policy debates for a moment. Put aside the debate over whether or not concern for the poor necessitates a confiscatory welfare regime, whether water-boarding is an intrinsic evil, whether being pro-life means being pro-subsidized single motherhood, or any of the other heated policy debates that politically-minded Catholics like to have. The reality is that the fate of the Church in the United States, which is not historically Catholic or majority Catholic, will necessarily be determined through a struggle of powers greater than itself.

On one side of the struggle is a coalition that respects the right of the Church to exist, even if it does not fully embrace all of her positions. On the other side of the struggle is a coalition that can barely conceal its violent hostility for the Church and is pursuing policies and programs that will have the practical effect of driving her out of public life. It isn’t my intention to make the hard case for that here, but most of us understand what the far-reaching implications of the HHS mandate will be. We understand that the kind of people who would propose and implement such a thing can be counted upon to press even further, especially when they no longer have an election to win. We are well within reason to label these people enemies.

As a matter of self-defense, then, we must work for the defeat of Obama this fall. There are other prudent reasons to do so as well. Obama’s vision of fairness and justice is irrational and warped. His recent statements on the HHS mandate are proof enough of this. In the view of Democratic Party, it is not simply our obligation to cough up as much as they determine they need to pump into another social program whose practical results are dubious; our refusal to do so is tantamount to actually taking control of someone else’s life and limiting their freedom. If I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control, this means I want to “control the decisions they make about their health” or something along these lines. This insane rationale can be extended to just about anything that can itemized by an apparatchik. There is no limit to what this regime believes it can demand of you in the name of its grand social vision, a vision which is sharply at odds, moreover, with the Catholic faith. As Pope Leo XIII wrote:

If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. — Libertas, 10

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a perfect description of the HHS mandate and its underlying principles.

If God, in his wisdom, decides to punish us with four more years of Obama, I will see the good in it. I think it will motivate Catholics to organize and resist in ways they have not yet seen the need to do, and that out of this may grow something wonderful and transformative. But I cannot in conscience actively work for such an outcome. I believe my duty is to resist this categorically evil regime. That is why I will support Romney-Ryan for the White House in 2012. I will do so with a clear conscience as one who would defend the Church, the light of civilization and bride of Christ.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Santorum Sad Face

Posted on March 7, 2012 by DN

I was really excited yesterday to be able to vote in North Dakota’s presidential caucus. I was even more excited for the fact that I was going to get to vote for Rick Santorum, and was elated that Rick won in North Dakota and overall had a pretty good run last night.

But when someone, a fellow Catholic and conservative :( ‘s my choice to vote for Santorum I was utterly disappointed. While Santorum is my first choice, I realize that he is not everyone’s. But to sad face that I am voting for him? Please. Santorum’s stances on the issues and voting record are more than solidly conservative. Anybody who wants a conservative replacement for Obama can appreciate that. Furthermore, as Catholics we really should appreciate Santorum who is indeed Catholic, not a John F. Kennedy Catholic, but a true honest to goodness Catholic (with the exception of the death penalty).

Now I’m not saying that Catholics are required to have Santorum as a first choice, but no Catholic should be sad that somebody would choose to vote for Santorum. Since we are Catholics first and Republican second, we should be supporting the candidates who embody Catholic values. At the very least we shouldn’t be upset at the Catholics who do support these candidates even if they weren’t our own first choices.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

What the Fight About the Mandate is Really About

Posted on February 10, 2012 by DN

If you keep up with current events, you may have heard about all of the Catholics who are outraged at Obama over a mandate from the HHS in regards to Obamacare.

In short, this mandate will force virtually all employers to give their employees insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, including certain prescriptions that are abortifacients (drugs that cause a fertilized egg, which is a person, to be unable to attach to the uterine wall, thus aborting the pregnancy).

Catholicism, as many know, teaches that contraception is a grave evil because it is anti-life and it dissolves the nature of the marital act which is itself a reflection on the very supernature of God.

So the Obama administration is forcing Catholic employers to purchase things for employees that are strictly forbidden by our religious precepts.

Faithful Catholics everywhere are outraged.

But the outrage is not necessarily over the contraception mandate itself, but rather in the very obvious overstep the Federal government is taking. This decision is a clear violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment protects us from being prohibited from practicing our religion. Yet, this mandate directly prohibits us from practicing our religion.

This is what the real fight is about. It’s not about contraception.

Today it happens to be Catholics.  Tomorrow it could be the Jews. The day after that the Buddhists. If we let the government dictate what parts of  religion others of one religion are allowed to practice, there is no reason that they won’t be able to do that to all religions, even yours, whatever it may be.

If we allow this atrocious violation of religious liberty to stand, we cease to be American. America was founded on the principles of religious liberty, and it is the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

So we cannot stand still and say “It’s just the Catholics, it doesn’t affect my life.” If we stand silent who will be there when they come after you?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Order

Posted on January 31, 2012 by DN

1. Santorum

2. Gingrich

3. Paul

4. Romney

If Romney wins the Republican nomination I will probably vote for a third party.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , ,

No More Sugar Daddy

Posted on July 10, 2011 by DN

Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.

As a governor, I had to deal with facts, even unpleasant ones. I dealt with the world as it is, not as I wished it to be. The “elite” political class in this country with their heads in the sand had better face some unpleasant facts about the world as it is. They’ve run out of money and no amount of accounting gimmicks or happy talk will change this reality. Those of us who live in the real world could see this day coming.

Back in January 2009, as governor of Alaska, I announced: “We also have to be mindful about the effect of the stimulus package on the national debt and the future economic health of the country. We won’t achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing massive sums from foreign countries and remain dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.” Then I urged President Obama to veto the stimulus bill because it was loaded with absolutely useless pork and unfunded mandates. Everyone knows my early and vocal opposition to that mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare starting back in August 2009, and many recall my objections to the Federal Reserves’ inflationary games with our currency known as QE2 from November 2010. It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.

This debt ceiling debate is the perfect time to do what must be done. We must cut. Yes, I’m for a balanced budget amendment and for enforceable spending caps. But first and foremost we must cut spending, not “strike a deal” that allows politicians to raise more debt! See, Washington is addicted to OPM – Other People’s Money. And like any junkie, they will lie, steal, and cheat to fund their addiction. We must cut them off and cut government down to size.

To paraphrase Hemingway, people go broke slowly and then all at once. We’ve been slowly going broke for years, but now it’s happening all at once as the world’s capital markets are demanding action from us, yet Obama assumes we’ll just go borrow another cup of sugar from some increasingly impatient neighbor. We cannot knock on anyone’s door anymore. And we don’t have any time to wait for Washington to start behaving responsibly. We’ll be Greece before these D.C. politicians’ false promises are over. We must force government to live within its means, just as every business and household does.

We can’t close our $1.5 trillion deficit overnight, but we must get as close as we can as soon as we can. Little nibbles here and there over 10 years (spun to sound like they’re huge budget cuts) aren’t anywhere near enough. I know from experience that cutting government spending isn’t easy. As governor, I made the largest veto cuts in my state’s history, and I didn’t make many friends doing it. But we will never recover, we will never get free of devastating debt, unless we make tough choices now. We don’t hear talk like this from leaders in D.C. or from those running for office because they say what they think we want to hear rather than what must be said.

We are in desperate need of real leadership, but President Obama’s solution to everything is to grow government by borrowing more money, spending more money, printing more money, and taxing our job creators. He once said that he “believes in American Exceptionalism…just as the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism.” Well, the path he has us on will make us just as “exceptional” as Greece – debt crisis, stagnation, permanent high unemployment, and all.

As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.

But let me tell you where real hope lies. It’s not the hopey-changey stuff we heard about in 2008. Real hope comes from realizing how God has blessed our exceptional nation, and then doing something about it. We have been blessed with natural resources, hardworking entrepreneurs, and a Constitution that preserves the greatest form of government ever devised by man. If we develop those natural resources, allow our entrepreneurs to keep and invest more of what they earn, and adhere to the time-tested truths of our Constitution, we will prosper and endure.

But first and foremost we must tackle our debt. We don’t have the luxury of playing politics as usual. We need real leaders who will put aside their own political self-interest to do what is right for the nation. And if they don’t emerge… well, America has a do-over in November 2012.

- Sarah Palin

Categories: America | Tags: , , ,

Freedom of Religion

Posted on November 4, 2010 by DN

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
March 4, 1789

Over the last two centuries, this little statement has left some big impressions. But it doesn’t really say all that much, leaving many questions arise: what does an establishment of religion mean? or what does or does not inhibit the free exercise of religion?

One popular idea today is that politicians, those who are members of government, whether it be federal, state, or local, should not allow their religious ideologies to play a role in their decision-making, in the way that they write their bills, or in the way that they vote on proposed legislation. This idea comes from an idea of separation of church and state, and is said to be implied by the prohibition of an establishment of religion. But does the first amendment say all of that? And if it does, is that a wise statement?

First, is this idea a wise statement? No. Short and sweet. And the reason is that it is used to diminish the voice of certain people. In particular, this is used against right leaning Christians, specifically Catholics. Catholics (at least faithful ones) are staunchly against abortion. We stand for the right of all men to have life, whether they are three months in the womb, newly conceived, twenty years old, or on life support. This belief stems from theology, from the fact that man is created in the image of God, that he has an inherent dignity not dependent on age or ability, race, utility, gender, “wantedness”, or circumstance of conception. We also believe firmly in the family as a fundamental unit of society worth protecting. This is coupled with the belief of the uniqueness and benefit of marriage between a man and woman. Again, this is firmly founded on religious principles for the most part.

And because these ideas usually flow from our religious beliefs, we are often told that they have no business in the public square, that they are alright behind our closed doors (sometimes), but not on the floor of the Congress. It is said that to put such ideas into our laws violates the first amendment freedom of others to be free from religion. And so we must shut up. But this is completely unfair. Every single person’s beliefs can be identified with some kind of religious theology, even the atheist’s or agnostic’s theology that there is no god or ability to know god. The idea that sex doesn’t matter, that marriage doesn’t matter, that life doesn’t matter is a part of your beliefs about the universe, about right and wrong, about humanity, about what should be done. What makes secularism any more worthy than Catholicism? Why does a lack of deity make something more valuable to our culture? The truth is that it doesn’t, and it is unwise to say that these beliefs are ok to be in public debate, but mine aren’t because I happen to be Catholic and you are offended by Catholic beliefs.

The fact is that your beliefs offend me just as much as mine offend you. The fact is that in this nation, I should not be forced to strip off what is my core identity, my Catholic faith, because you do not like what I have to say. Yet, this is often touted as my duty, to rid my public dialogue of Catholic themes. I don’t ask you to ignore the core of who you believe you are when you enter the public square, so do not ask me to, or any politician for that matter, when they happen to have opposing viewpoints as you do.

As to the other question on whether or not the first amendment implies such an unwise interpretation, I do not believe that it does. Of course, many court cases would disagree with me, but I think a simple look at the words and the context of the times is evident enough. Our nation was formed by men who left a nation where they did not have the free choice in religious matters because of a national church. America was not to be like that. There would be no “Church of America”. The intent was for every man to be able to exercise religion according to his conscience. It opened the door for religion to become a real part of public debate, rather than a force-fed dogma of a state-run church. In today’s America, many would like to see that door closed. They don’t want people who advocate self-control to have a say, to let people with traditional views on marriage to have a say, to let people who don’t want to abandon tried and tested methods be dumped to the wayside to speak up.

This idea is not American, and it needs to be abandoned (at least that is my opinion, which I have every right to express in the public debate and on the ballot). America is moving in a new direction after the recent election. Those of us on both sides of the continuum need to remember that all persons have the right to express their beliefs in the public arena and when the will of the people is made clear, it should be followed, no matter what their religious or non-religious motives, because that is democracy, and America is a democracy.

Categories: America, Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Adventure Journal by Contexture International.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: