Watching the news last night I was disturbed by the image of video showing Barack Obama HOLDING AND KISSING BABIES.  I was appalled, to say the least.  I wonder if those mothers would have let him hold their babies if they were open to hearing the truth about Barack Obama's monstrous stance on abortion and infanticide?  One wonders if these people understand that if any these babies were born (early) due to an abortion that didn't work out as intended, Obama's position would be to let them die - or to kill them and finish the job, so to speak.  This man is evil.  His success on the campaign trail this year has been due as much to the economy falling apart and his competitor being a tired old man as is has been due to Obama's running a campaign rife with corruption on a scale I have never seen before.  He has repeatedly lied about his positions on virtually every issue, most notably abortion, infanticide and redistribution of wealth through government intervention.  He has orchestrated a cover-up of his entire life with the exceptions of the brief snippets he has decided to share with the public.  His birth, medical, university and some private records along with many of those of his wife - most notably her thesis on "Blackness" in America (a black rage against white folks from what I understand) have all been ordered sealed until after the November 4 election.  Would such arrogance and secrecy be tolerated by any white, male, conservative candidate? Of course not.

Back to abortion and infanticide.  Here are my thoughts on this subject for whatever it is worth:

Abortion is a holocaust.  It is murder.  It is unconscionable and inherently unjust under ANY circumstances.  We all know that when cells begin multiplying and growing they are doing so under the guidance and instruction of the human DNA blueprint so wisely planned out by God.  We all know that these cells are human - that this is a baby.  We all know that when something grows and reproduces and multiplies that is can do so only because it is alive - were it not alive and living it would not be able to grow or reproduce, correct? 

Abortion is the merciless killing of an innocent unborn child by either literally ripping the child apart limb by little limb, burning it to death in a caustic chemical-saline mix, inducing early labor to birth the child early and leaving the helpless infant to die without assistance or comfort, or by almost completely delivering the baby, leaving the head inside the mother while the murderer HOLDS THE BABY'S FEET, TURNS THE BABY OVER AND PLUNGES SCISSORS INTO THE BACK OF IT'S NECK, THEN APPLIES A VACUUM TO SUCK THE BABY'S BRAIN OUT.  No one method is any more evil than the others.  Murder is murder, plain and simple, and in my own very judgmental, politically-incorrect, far-right-wing-conservative-conspiratorial assessment, there is a very special place in hell reserved for such as those who could hold the feet of an infant and plunge scissors into it's neck with the premeditated intent of killing such innocent life.  There, I've said it.

It is unconscionable that a civilized society would not merely acquiesce to such barbarity, but elevate it to the noble status of law - and the Law of the Land, at that.  It is, to my feeble mind, inconceivable that such atrocities could be given legitimate and protected legal status in a republic whose Constitution is supposedly firmly rooted in the promotion and protection of Liberty, to which the protection of life is indeed essential.  When one is deprived of life one is not afforded Liberty.   As President, Barack Obama would deprive millions upon millions more babies of their lives by gleefully signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would purportedly override any and every restriction on any abortion procedure at any stage of a pregnancy.  This is not merely un-American, it is something out of Nazi Germany - in fact, that is essentially how the Nazis were able to lead up to the implementation of their "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem." 

Abortion-on-demand through the third trimester over several years numbed and desensitized the masses to the horrors of what the Nazi regime had planned.  It lead to partial-birth abortion, euthanizing the mentally retarded and physically deformed children to "spare them the difficulties of life," and ultimately to millions of innocent people being killed because the government didn't like them.  The Soviets employed the same policy, as do the Communist Chinese at present.  If you don't think such horrors can happen here just go to YouTube and watch a partial-birth abortion.  If you were to watch such a thing and be wholly un-phased by witnessing an innocent life brutally taken by such barbaric means, I would suggest that there is very likely a special place in hell reserved for you right next to the guy who killed the baby.  Maybe you could even share a drink with Hitler and Himmler - but just remember that even as head of the SS Heinrich Himmler collapsed and threw up in convulsions after witnessing a mass execution by firing squad at one of his favorite death camps.

Do I think it could happen - that abortion-on-demand could lead to people like you and I being separated from our families, and led off to prison camps to be executed?  My answer is that I don't know.  I don't know about a lot of things these days.  But I do know that I am a Christian.  And I do know that a President Obama would not like the things that I believe.  And I do know that he has no regard for human life, that he is a liar, that he has employed a corrupt and thuggish organization to steal an election, and that most people know absolutely nothing of substance about this man because he refuses to unseal pertinent information to be vetted. I also know where he stands on my right to bear arms and the rest of the Constitution, for that matter: 

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."  Like kill you in the womb. 

I don't know a lot of things, but I do know I will be purchasing non-perishable items, outdoor clothing, and that I will be frequenting gun shows looking to make acquisitions.  Do I think horrors can happen here?  I don't know, but if our next President loads the Supreme Court with justices who interpret the Constitution as being fluid, living an devolving with the times, that tells me we don't really have one and that I should be prepared.

Below is a link to a video I found through New Advent.  It is a little long, but very much worth watching.  It is not graphic or violent - simply words - Obama's own words, images and music.  There is a picture of a deceased baby at the very end of the video, but it is intact - the result of a saline induced abortion.

http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=7030bd098cca768e72d111&skin_id=701&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url

This video should be widely distributed - especially to Obama supporters.  It is very tactfully done, as much as a video on such a topic can be done tastefully.  They cannot deny the truth - and they cannot say they never knew....

Or, would he prefer to remain in the Democrat majority of the Senate come January 20? Or maybe he’s even sending out feelers for a Cabinet post in an Obama Administration… It is getting hard to tell. In fact one could possibly argue that he doesn’t really want it. After all, how many opportunities has McCain had to call into question Obama’s stealth past, his socialist and terrorist connections, his complete and very obvious lack of any academic work that might offer even a minute view into that the man is really thinking and how he views the world – and he has passed nearly all of them by until last week. Indeed, even going on the attack for Senator McCain seem to mean letting you running mate do the dirty work. It is not an abnormal thing to have the candidate at the top of the ticket try to remain above the fray and appear more “statesman-like” while their running mate goes for the jugular. 

Here’s where I have a problem with McCain’s alleged strategy: he’s not going for the jugular and I don’t think he will. Worse, I believe it’s not that he wouldn’t, it’s that he believes he shouldn’t. Senator McCain, a career navy man who has more than served his fair share of time in combat and the living hell of North Vietnamese POW camp, no doubt understands very well the essence of combat. Whether the combat is military or political the goal of combat is victory, and one achieves victory in only one of two ways: one forces the enemy to surrender, or one destroys and terminates the enemy. 

Given the stakes in this election and the fact that they have just been raised immeasurably higher by the recent government actions to nationalize massive segments of the private economy, which McCain himself supports, one would think the Senator would be fighting as hard as he can to destroy and terminate the enemy rather than simply try to force him to capitulate and surrender, and this most especially so given the fact that Obama is undoubtedly the most dangerous man ever to position himself for a takeover of the US Government. I say takeover, rather than “seek election” because in seeking election one does not employ miscreants to engage in vote fraud on a massive scale, nor does one celebrate little children being forced to sing propaganda songs about “hope and change,” nor does one remain conspicuously silent on the subject of youths dressed in fatigues performing paramilitary drills in public schools while shouting out Obama’s plans for “change.”

The thing I am finding truly disturbing is that right now he appears to be fighting for neither capitulation nor destruction of the enemy. In fact, just within the last couple of days Senator McCain has actively defended Obama. His admonished his own supporters for demanding he hit Obama harder over his connection to terrorist William Ayers, and then called Senator Barack Obama an inherently good and decent man who loves and believes in America.

Senator, I beg to differ wit your assessment of Mr. Obama, and here’s why:

1. Inherently good and decent men do not enable infanticide;

2. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when their supporters threaten to bring criminal charges against anyone who speaks ill of The One;

3. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when children are being exploited for political purposes;

4. Inherently good and decent men to not go out of their way to hide their past;

 5. Inherently good and decent men to not remain silent when children are indoctrinated into politically extremist views by those who are entrusted with their care and education’

6. Inherently good and decent men would not have spent 20 years in a racist, anti-American “church” listening to their pastor incite hate in the name of Christ;

7. Inherently good and decent men would admit to their past associations with extremist groups like ACORN, would admit to the roles they served, and denounce attempts to win an election by fraud;

8. Inherently good and decent men do no associate with admitted and unrepentant terrorists;

9. Inherently good and decent men would denounce their endorsements by Marxist and socialist groups, as well as foreign terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah;

10. Inherently good and decent men would not actively try to subvert the foreign policy of the sitting President (however misguided he may be…);

11. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert the Constitution at every opportunity;

12. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert their own nation’s sovereignty to a world body like the UN;

13. Inherently good and decent men speak plainly about what they believe and what they want to do;

14. Inherently good and decent men do not actively sanction the suppression of free speech;

15. Inherently good and decent men do not devalue human life to the equivalent of a “mistake”;

16. Inherently good and decent men do not engage in corrupt activity and then point fingers at others;

17. Inherently good and decent men would admit to past mistakes and ask forgiveness;

18. Inherently good and decent men do not play the “race-card”;

19. Inherently decent men do not incite race-riots through their surrogates;

20. Inherently good and decent men would speak the truth.

There is nothing good and decent about Barack Obama. He is a monster who enabled infanticide simply so he could continue to rake in campaign money and support from Planned Parenthood. He was an “academic” yet never published any professional work, only is self-crafted and spun autobiography. He has denied associations anyone with an internet connection can validate that he had, he refuses to answer questions on almost every facet of his life’s story, and he received not merely a free pass but the adulation and love of the smitten masses who have been waiting for “the One.” History shows time and again when a man come out of nowhere and ascends to high office without vetting and proper examination, the consequences can be most severe. And now with the perfect storm brewing economically, socio-politically, and culturally, we have in Obama the most extreme and dangerous ideological zealot every to seek the Presidency, and a man who has employed masterfully the teaching of his master, Saul Alinsky – deceit on a massive scale, because one cannot divulge who they really are lest they be rejected. Hence the necessity of pretending to be like everyone else; to lie, cheat and steal, to employ thuggish threats and corruption, and to deny everything with a smile while playing the “race-card.” 

The fact is that we no more about Sarah Palin’s 17 year of daughter’s pregnancy and Sarah’s newborn son Trigg than we do about Obama. But John McCain believes he is a good and decent man. The man who as President would utterly destroy what is left of capitalism and liberty in this country is a “good and decent man?” 

While I had been a “fence-sitter” or a “nose-holder,” in less than lukewarm support of this ticket, with this statement coming from a man who portents to be a conservative and a maverick, I can stand it no longer, because with such a statement McCain has as much as openly admitted that he will not rock the boat in Washington, he will not cross the line that counts, he will not be a real maverick when it comes to truly standing up for what is right. And most disappointingly of all, in admonishing his supporters he makes it clear that he will not go for the jugular and fight to terminate Obama’s chances at the White House with the arsenal he has available to him. He will not use all the weaponry at his disposal to bring this combat to a victorious conclusion for the American people. He will not put his country first – for fear of offending fence-sitting Democrats and perhaps losing their support. At this point, in my own opinion, the only reason McCain can call himself a maverick is because he has fought conservatives every inch of the way. 

Like many others out there, I can take a lot and compromise to a point. My line in the sand has been crossed. And, I am now more than ever convinced that if this republic is to survive as a free society, it will be because the third parties run the Democrats and Republicans out of town and make the Constitution the law of the land once again. Anything less will be un-survivable after an Obama Presidency. Continued capitulation to Obama’s Chicago socialist propaganda machine is merely a policy of appeasement that will only serve to undermine the cause of the right. I am now convinced that McCain does not have it in him to fight Obama to the death, so to speak. We all know the MSM is in the bad for Obama, and that Obama is a vey intelligent man with a massive underground extremist organization determined to hand him the Presidency licitly or illicitly – by any means necessary. 

And now we know that the GOP leadership will roll over and cut the best deal it can with these traitorous thugs while leaving the rest of us with false hope. I will not be fooled. I know the GOP cannot be trusted any more than the Democrats. If the future of this republic is in any way to resemble the glories of her past days, the only viable way to set this course is through independent candidates, third parties and merciless phone and email assaults on Capitol Hill. I, for one and for what it is worth, will be throwing myself into third party activism and campaigning. If I had money I’d be throwing that too. It is far better to begin and end the revolution with the ballot rather than with the shedding of blood which should be avoided at all costs, although I am not at all convinced that the government, especially under Obama, would be able resist the temptation to fire the first shot. May God help us in our righteous cause of Liberty.

For me, from my Catholic Christian perspective, it is an obligation to illuminate the unspeakable evils enabled by men and women of Obama’s ilk, yet all too sadly such discussion of the truth fall on deaf ears even in many Christian circles. This truth is ugly and must be told and acknowledged. What is perhaps most disturbing to me is that as Americans so many profess to be Christians, believers in the salvation of humanity bought by the price of the Blood of Christ, yet so many of these self-professed believers also either actively sanction the unjustifiable slaughter of the innocent unborn in their own mother’s wombs or they take the politically correct approach and claim that it would be wrong to “impose” their moral beliefs on others. I submit that such a weak excuse will not win the favor of the Almighty when at judgment the tens of millions of holy innocents fill the Holy Courts and ask, “Why?”

Indeed, for those who profess belief in God in general and in Christ as Savior in particular there cannot be any validity found in what we Catholics term the “cafeteria” approach where one accepts all the warm-and-fuzzy sentiments and rewards of Christianity while rejecting either tacitly or outright the difficult moral stances required in order to obtain even the possibility of attaining such rewards.

To say that Americans have become complacent in their faith is an understatement, for it is increasingly clear that many do not see the inherent and irrefutable connection between the moral evils being perpetrated in this country and our collective woes as a nation. To pass such things off as merely coincidental is not only naïve but deadly – both to one’s soul and to our republic. I readily confess that I am no theologian; however, to deny the correlation between, say, the tens of millions of abortions that have been allowed to take place on American soil – something we know as Christians is inherently evil and unjustifiable under any condition or pretext – and the idea that disobedience to God by the continuing perpetration of grave moral evils will ultimately result in the loss of His grace to sustain us is completely and utterly stupid, not to mention hypocritical. When we turn our collective backs on God and His Commandments as a nation should it be any surprise, then, that He withdraws His grace and leaves us to our own devices in our imperfect and fallen condition, subject to our own concupiscence to fend for ourselves? It is any wonder that the more prideful we become as a nation the less guidance and assistance we can expect from our humble and living God? 

If we are to regain our footing and return our nation to prosperity it is necessary to acknowledge God and His commandments, to honor them, and to collectively repent of the evils that go on within our boarders. Darkness cannot withstand the light of Truth, and it is indeed His Truth that will once again set us free from slavery to sin. We can illuminate the darkness by speaking the truth and here is a good place to start: actions have consequences in the eyes of God, for Jesus tells us as much throughout the Gospels. Remember the wheat and the chaff?   Let us not mince words, then.

Senator Obama came out swinging at John McCain this morning, taking swipes at his “extreme” position against abortion, and his minions in the MSM are only too willing to deliver the ever-convoluted messages of the Prophet of Hope and Change. The AP (read DNC) hit the ground running this morning with an article entitled, “Obama calls out McCain on abortion.” Gee, with a title like that, you’d just have to assume Obama holds the correct position on abortion. 

McCain is opposed to abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or in cases of rape and incest. He would prefer to see Roe overturned and the issue sent back to the states, where it belongs. In fact, Obama is so confident that he is in the right, he rails that McCain holds an "extreme position on choice" and "will make abortion illegal."

It is difficult to wrap one’s mind around the fact that Obama does not see his position on abortion as extreme. As has been reported since he announced his candidacy, Obama favors unrestricted abortion to include lifting all bans on partial-birth abortion. Obama also fought hard to kill a bill in the Illinois State Senate that would have protected a newborn baby that survived a late-term induced-labor abortion. In fact, he is on the record on the floor of the State Senate as not merely speaking out against the bill, but in doing so making a convoluted argument as to why a baby born alive should not be afforded “human personhood” because it would “unduly encroach upon Roe.” Translated, that means, “I can’t afford to let these children live because I must retain my 100% rating from NARAL in order to received money from Planned Parenthood.”

Here is Obama in his own words on the floor of the Illinois State Senate:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

To clarify his twisted reasoning Senator Obama explained it thus: "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute." [For audio of this testimony click here.]

Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years.

If that is not the extreme position of a murderous pro-infanticide zealot, then what is?

Why Pro-Abortion Catholics Are Wrong

Here’s an opinionated statement for you: Anyone who calls themselves an “ardent practicing” Christian yet maintains a pro-abortion stance is dead wrong. This is most especially so with Catholics – and I have the facts to prove it. To slice up the Christian interdenominational pie and examine the various pieces, and more importantly the beliefs and behavior of those who consider themselves to be faithful Christians however, you might think otherwise. And at the present time there is no denomination where this is more apparent than among Catholics. What is truly ironic about this is that the Catholic Church unequivocally states that abortion is a grave evil, is never justifiable and that merely condoning the act [taking the stance of being pro-abortion] is an excommunicable offense. 

Observe the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2270-2275:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Pelosi added, “So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.” [emphasis mine] Suffice it to say that Madame Speaker confuses free will with license, the latter being a distortion and a perversion of the former.

In response to these outrageous claims of Nancy Pelosi that the Church would condone an individual Catholic to believe that abortion is indeed a legitimate act, Archbishop Chaput – a man who will not shy away from speaking the true he is obligated to teach and uphold had this to say in a letter written specifically to address this subject: “We now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious alibis for abortion and a so-called ‘right to choose’ are nothing more than that – alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.”

“Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they’re famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.”

Indeed! Hopefully more Catholic Bishops will follow Archbishop Chaput’s lead in teaching the faith, not shying away from it. It is unfortunate that so few currently do, for it is exactly this relaxation of teaching the faith and strict adherence to the Magisterium [the teaching office of the Church comprised of the Pope, the Bishops, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition] over the last four decades that resulted in such terrible scandal suffered by not just the Church, but the whole world. It is this relaxation, this complicity with rampant immorality, this disregard for the teachings of Christ by some Bishops who by their action and inaction gave wrought scandal among God’s people. 

The Catholic Church defines scandal as: “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.”

Though there are differences between the many Christian denominations, we can all agree on the core tenets of the teachings of Christ and in particular, as regards abortion, this: that no authentic Christian denomination would hold that abortion and infanticide are acceptable practices or in any way justifiable. Every authentic Christian denomination would agree that the crime of abortion can never be justified or acceptable, for it is a crime, a sin that cries out to God for vengeance: and God, who is Just, will answer that cry. Even those denomination without a centralized teaching authority accept the Words of Sacred Scripture: “Thou shalt not kill.”

It is no wonder that politicians the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy are so misguided, likely having poor examples of mentorship in their formative years, very likely in the form of teachers, priests and religious sisters who taught outright defiance of the basic tenets of the faith. This is an acceptable excuse for their earlier misguided opinions and actions, but no longer, because they, by their own evasive words, condemn themselves; and, unfortunately mislead many others into believing that they are correct. In the Catholic Church the only “choice” is to believe or to reject the teachings of Christ. We now know where the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Biden stand. Praise be to God for giving Archbishop Chaput the courage to call them on it.

Really. Think about it: Kerry has represented Massachusetts in the Senate since 1985. Who were all the other real-potential running mates? Kerry HAD to pick the southerner because two wacky “progressives” on the Democrat ticket just won’t win the White House. Fast-forward four years. Obama HAD to pick Biden to balance his inexperience. After all, Joe Biden has been in the Senate since 1972 – “Change” indeed! Great! So now we might get an inexperienced President with a Vice-President and chief advisor who has been in Washington since the stoned age. Sounds a bit like… nevermind. 

Seriously, though: Joe Biden was the only logical pick. You know it, I know it, any anyone who has been paying attention lately knows it; so, my question is, “Why all the hype for something that really wasn’t a mystery to begin with?” The answer: LACK OF SUBSTANCE!

Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Yes We Can! Hail the Messiah! Now that we have the running mate, on with the MSM love-fest!   Hooray! Hooray for CHANGE! 

You know, there was a time when a political party’s convention actually meant something, and that time was not really so long ago. But alas, now our bubblegum pop-culture has usurped out political process along with everything else. The result? What used to be a noble and excited event – the choosing of a candidate to represent a party and a people to run for President of the United States – has been reduced to a rock concert where there are days and days of hype and drama building up to the main event – the Keynote Speech. At least that’s what it will be for McCain. Obama’s is more likely to be his coronation.

You will remember his speech in Boston in 2004. That is, you remember he spoke, but what the hell did he say? Exactly my point. We all knew in 2004 that this guy, this Obama, would be a rising star, but who expected the Clintons to allow him to beat Hillary? My point here is this – there is no substance to either of these men – not that I am thrilled to death and jumping for joy over McCain. Like I said before, if he gets my vote it will be because he is clearly the lesser of two evils. So, in the interest of fairness, I feel it my obligation to examine what Joe Biden will bring to the Democrat ticket.

Senator Biden’s positions are really not that far off from Senator McCain’s on many issues – which scares the living hell out of me. The biggest different between the two is on the issues of abortion and the Second Amendment.

Biden is, naturally, a pro-abortion Democrat. Of course. He is also a “practicing” Catholic who claims to accept the teachings of he Church on faith. All the teachings, that is, except the one on abortion and the sanctity of life. As a Catholic myself, I take great offense to these charlatans who want to wear their Catholicism on one sleeve to court votes and their overt willingness to kill babies on the other sleeve in order to advance their career. I find this to be a substantial character issue, but I will take that one on at another time. Suffice it to say for now that proclaiming one’s love for Christ on the one hand and enabling the holocaust of abortion on demand on the other is inconsistent at the very least. In my view, which is the view of the Catholic Church, the two are irreconcilable, diametrically opposed. 

Before moving on, I just have to give two brief examples of why I believe this abortion issue to be one of character: 

 Accepts Catholic Church view that life begins at conception

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007 

Q: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?

A: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That's why the late-term abortion ban, where there's clearly viability.

Nominees should agree on Constitutional right to privacy

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Q: As president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

A: I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That's why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas. [Emphasis all mine]

WHAT??!! Once again, we must endure sophistry from the mouth of a politician. Only that didn’t make any sense to me. Hey, at least he didn’t outright lie like Obama no his vote to kill the “infants born alive” bill. But, I digress. 

On gun control issues well, he’s a Democrat. This guy can find a right to murder babies within the privacy clause in the Constitution, but “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” means we shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Someone else is going to have to explain that stuff to me, because I’m at a loss. These guys make my brain hurt.

It is very sad what has happened to politics in this country. It is sad that everything has become a mode of entertainment and a vehicle for ratings and advertising. I thought a lot and talked a lot about this while I was at the Florida Gun Show today. What is happening to America? We’ve been overhyped and over-indulged, and now come November – no matter who wins – we, the people, lose. We are set up for a very sore disappointment.

There are a great many issues that need to be addressed, but can we get through all the hype and rock-star stuff? Instead of McCain’s houses can we talk about SPP, or Georgia and Putin, or Iraq and the –Stans, or what the impact of socialized medicine will have on an already taxed economy? Can we talk about what Obama and Biden’s definition of change will really mean for this republic? Of course not, because there is no substance to most of their ideas, and where there is substance it is of the stuff that could potentially ruin this nation. Perhaps the Obama-Biden Administration can be summed up in these two statements: 

From 27 April 2007

“We also have to look east, because increasingly the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years, but obviously China is rising, and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region.”

From 21 August 2008:

OBAMA: “Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Hey, the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too. Hooray for CHANGE! Change indeed.

However, even though things could presumably go very badly for us conservatives this November, all is not yet lost. We can still take control of the future. After all, we out number them. And who knows, in the short term, maybe it will be to our advantage to have an unmitigated disaster in the White House and on Capitol Hill with Comrades Obama and Pelosi running things. How do you say, “Conservative sweep in 2010,” in Chinese?