The end is nigh?

From Pam at Iraq War Today. (And yes, I DO know Pam…lol)

My Two Cents: The End is Nigh?

So here we are, less than a week from an election that could quite literally mean the end of the United States of America as we know her. Paranoia? Perhaps. I never would have believed that my nation could truly be on the verge of voting itself out of existence. But here we are.

The golden child of this presidential election has deep, obvious cracks in his hallowed facade. There are signs that few could miss if they actually look – signs that indicate severe issues. Besides his associations with radicals and terrorists, there are scores of trouble markers.

He appears not to care who supports him. His website does not utilize credit card matching for donations; a test using the names Osama bin Laden, John Galt, and Saddam Hussein to make donations with the same credit card revealed that all the donations went through. In fact, a lot of interesting people have been donating to Obama; and foreign credit are also being accepted. Donations have come from Palestine. Good Will, Loving, and Dela Ware have also made donations. Obama also accepts donations from largely untraceable pre-paid credit cards. His campaign’s response to questions was that “no campaign can fully insulate itself” from these types of issues. John McCain and Hillary Clinton used computer matching (ABS) and citizenship checks for their donations. Obama checks neither….

And you know there is more – much more. Go read this well-articulated piece NOW here!

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*

Advertisements

Obama Advisors Praise Iran



OBAMA ADVISOR PRAISES IRAN

A note from Radarsite: “Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.” This from Ed Lasky in his superb editorial response to The Boston Globe. Now more than ever, in these last few days before this fateful election, it is vitally important to thoroughly understand what is at stake here, and to remember that what is happening in America right now has happened before.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Germany’s infamous Third Reich is that Adolf Hitler somehow seized power and that the worst excesses of Nazism were later unleashed on the unsuspecting German people after he had assumed the reins of government. (Note: Before letting out that exasperated sigh and saying, Oh no, not another Hitler parallel, please read on). Thus the German Volk have been disingenuously portrayed as innocent victims rather than the complicit participants they most certainly were. The truth of the matter is a little less attractive. The overt murderous racism, the horrors of the Holocaust, the ruthless military aggressions, the almost complete suppression of civil rights, the ultimate invasion of Russia — all of these fateful and ultimately catastrophic realizations of the goals of the Third Reich were clearly spelled out for all to see long before January 1933 when Hitler finally assumed the Chancellorship of Germany.

Throughout the pages of Mein Kampf, and in all of the Nazi manifestos, and in their hundreds of widely-publicised speeches their intentions were made crystal clear. And, far from seizing power, Hitler and the Nazis were legally voted into office. Subsequently, through a whole series of votes and referendums, all of Hitler’s wildest ambitions were easily ratified and given the force of law.
Why? A wildly popular and charismatic leader had promised change. And the German people desperately wanted change. And they most certainly got it.

Here once again we are being seduced by the siren song of yet another popular charismatic leader who is promising us change. And in his Twenty-First century version of Mein Kampf, and in all of his party’s manifestos, and in all of his innumerable speeches, his wildly ambitious and ultimately disastrous agenda is laid out openly for all to see. This article is just one more example of what we can expect from an Obama government. This will be our impotent answer to the existential threats posed by the mad mullahs. This will be our future.

If Barack Obama wins this election this coming Tuesday, no matter how horrific the consequences of an Obama presidency might be, we cannot pretend that we didn’t know what was coming, and that a majority of Americans didn’t enthusiastically embrace it.

Please God give us the courage and the wisdom the steer the right course through these perilous waters. – rg
———————————————————-

Cross posted from PA Pundits

h/t to Tony from Oz at Real Clear Politics
October 28, 2008
Ed Lasky

Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday’s Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.

By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned – a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.

Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban – a Sunni extremist group – hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don’t have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.

Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed – as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.

The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace – under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various “carrots” offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.

What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is – and has long been – designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).
That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning. We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.

Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.

Ed Lasky is the news editor for American Thinker.

Obama Advisors Praise Iran



OBAMA ADVISOR PRAISES IRAN

A note from Radarsite: “Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.” This from Ed Lasky in his superb editorial response to The Boston Globe. Now more than ever, in these last few days before this fateful election, it is vitally important to thoroughly understand what is at stake here, and to remember that what is happening in America right now has happened before.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Germany’s infamous Third Reich is that Adolf Hitler somehow seized power and that the worst excesses of Nazism were later unleashed on the unsuspecting German people after he had assumed the reins of government. (Note: Before letting out that exasperated sigh and saying, Oh no, not another Hitler parallel, please read on). Thus the German Volk have been disingenuously portrayed as innocent victims rather than the complicit participants they most certainly were. The truth of the matter is a little less attractive. The overt murderous racism, the horrors of the Holocaust, the ruthless military aggressions, the almost complete suppression of civil rights, the ultimate invasion of Russia — all of these fateful and ultimately catastrophic realizations of the goals of the Third Reich were clearly spelled out for all to see long before January 1933 when Hitler finally assumed the Chancellorship of Germany.

Throughout the pages of Mein Kampf, and in all of the Nazi manifestos, and in their hundreds of widely-publicised speeches their intentions were made crystal clear. And, far from seizing power, Hitler and the Nazis were legally voted into office. Subsequently, through a whole series of votes and referendums, all of Hitler’s wildest ambitions were easily ratified and given the force of law.
Why? A wildly popular and charismatic leader had promised change. And the German people desperately wanted change. And they most certainly got it.

Here once again we are being seduced by the siren song of yet another popular charismatic leader who is promising us change. And in his Twenty-First century version of Mein Kampf, and in all of his party’s manifestos, and in all of his innumerable speeches, his wildly ambitious and ultimately disastrous agenda is laid out openly for all to see. This article is just one more example of what we can expect from an Obama government. This will be our impotent answer to the existential threats posed by the mad mullahs. This will be our future.

If Barack Obama wins this election this coming Tuesday, no matter how horrific the consequences of an Obama presidency might be, we cannot pretend that we didn’t know what was coming, and that a majority of Americans didn’t enthusiastically embrace it.

Please God give us the courage and the wisdom the steer the right course through these perilous waters. – rg
———————————————————-

Cross posted from PA Pundits

h/t to Tony from Oz at Real Clear Politics
October 28, 2008
Ed Lasky

Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday’s Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.

By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned – a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.

Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban – a Sunni extremist group – hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don’t have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.

Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed – as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.

The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace – under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various “carrots” offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.

What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is – and has long been – designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).
That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning. We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.

Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.

Ed Lasky is the news editor for American Thinker.

Wednesday Hero

Wednesday Hero was started to put a spotlight on the men and women of the United States military and the bravery their show day in and day out. But on a few occasions a service members of an allied nation has been profiled. Such is the case this week.

Despite being shot twice during an ambush in Afghanistan, an SAS (Special Air Service) soldier from Australia lashed himself to the front of his patrol vehicle so he wouldn’t be left behind if he passed out from loss of blood and kept on fighting.

The Digger is expected to be recommended for a high level bravery award.

Suffering from serious upper body wounds, the soldier struggled on to the front of his SAS long range patrol vehicle (LRPV) and, under heavy fire, used a rope to attach himself firmly between the vehicle’s bull bar and radiator.

Once he was secured, and there was no chance that he would fall off if he fainted, he picked up his rifle and resumed firing at the enemy during a two-hour fighting withdrawal.

SAS troops and their special forces comrades from the Commando Regiment are well aware of the slow and painful death that awaits them if they are captured by the Taliban.

The Digger, who cannot be identified, faded in and out of consciousness, emptying several magazines as volleys of enemy rounds and rocket propelled grenades, rained down around him.

He was finally evacuated from the battle field at high speed still lashed to the front of the LRPV.

A source told The Courier-Mail the Digger was now “up and about” and would recover fully from his serious gunshot wounds. His heroic deeds will be recognised when he is recommended for a high level bravery award.

Several others engaged in the do-or-die battle on September 2 are also in line for top honours.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.
Wednesday Hero Logo

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.9

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Bottom Line: What does the Caliph do?

  • The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim

The Caliph makes war upon ‘people of the book’ and he fights all other peoples until they become Muslim or dead.

That is Islamic law, God damn it! Islam, as defined by:

  • its scripture: the Qur’an
  • its tradition: the Hadith
  • its law: the Sharia

is not a religion, it is permanent war!

When do those orders expire?

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad continues from 610 to the end of the world. What happens if the Muslims discontinue Jihad in favor of more productive pursuits?

Abu DawudBook 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Allah will curse them if they abandon Jihad.

INFINITE AUTHORITY: Why you can’t be Roman Catholic and support Barack Obama

Cross posted from Right Truth.

By R.J. Godlewski

“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to do evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” Catechism of the Catholic Church [407]

Usually, I am quite reserved when it comes to people’s political views and beliefs, so long as it represents an honest reflection. It is when dishonesty arises do I become terse and nowhere is this more evident than when “Catholics” try to subterfuge official Church dogma to support their personal political agendas. We’ve seen this as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among others, have perverted their faith for political gain. There can be no greater amount of hate then I have towards such people. However, I will tame my desires for an Inquisition and simply proceed with outlining how adherence to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with the liberal Democratic Party.
    
As Senator Barack Obama is now the de facto leader of the Democrats and although he is not Catholic himself, I will still use his beliefs against him to show Catholics why they cannot accept these policies and remain faithful to the Mother Church. In brief, no Roman Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience. Because I, as a member of the human population, am ill suited to discuss matters of divine revelation, I will defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as final authority on matters of Church doctrine.
    
If you claim to be Roman Catholic, especially in public, you hold allegiance to these truths. Any deviation is grounds for major sin; any swaying of the “flock” against them threatens eternal damnation. Roman Catholics should never – ever – vote for any person, support any organization, or harbor any action that goes against these beliefs. Period.

Abortion

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin” [2273] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994,607)

 Simply put, the Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception and no earthly authority – state or parent – can deny this fact. People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would have you believe that the Church only recently adopted this doctrine. They are very wrong:

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 [2271] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 606).
    
This not only silences the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but it highlights the grave infraction of a “Christian” such as Barack Obama who vehemently opposed law protecting children born live after failed abortions.

Homosexuality
 
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” [2357]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 625).
    
Can anyone add anything better than “Under no circumstances can they be approved”? Judge people by what they do, not by who they are.

Spreading the Wealth

The responsibility of the state. ‘Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society  [2432]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 643-644).

In other words, if people break the law through greed and corruption, then throw them into jail. Otherwise, the state has to keep its hands off for “responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals”.

Furthermore, the concept of “those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor” and “work effiiciently and honestly” means that paychecks fall under what we in the marine salvage industry call “no cure no pay” agreements. Simply put, if you don’t work you don’t get paid. A simpleton could understand that so why thousands of college-educated Obama supporters can’t is beyond me.
    
However, I still believe in “fair wages”. Nobody likes ecking out a living in a minimum wage job. I didn’t like it. I’m not sure if Barack Obama ever earned minimum wage as a post-collegiate adult, but I bet that he wouldn’t have liked it if he did. The point is there is a world of difference between someone toiling their way through a hot, dangerous factory and someone who simply doesn’t want to work. Fair wages is a two-way street – eliminate all those industry-destroying “I’m only going to do my particular job at fifty bucks per hour” automotive jobs and lower the cost of living for everyone else. Unions kill jobs when they make people lazy. At their salary, they should be able to fill the shoes of nearly every position within their area (while working in computer software for General Electric, I couldn’t plug in a computer printer because that was a client union job. That kind of employment socialism needs to stop).

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’[2427]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 642)
    
Barack Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” convoy just took a direct hit. That reference about “no work, no eat” comes straight from 2 Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” (3:10).  Remember when God Himself, the one who multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, came down to earth for a vist, He did not work as a “chartiable organizer” as some liberals propose. No, he worked as a carpenter. He worked with his hands in Joe the Carpenter’s shop and today would probably work well in Joe the Plumber’s shop too. No way could an office worker endure a Crucifixion. 

Self-Defense

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not’” [2263]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 603-604)

Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 
…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s” [2264]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” [2265] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm” [2266]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he wants to take away your right to own guns and punish you for protecting your life. Yet, in doing so, he is denying you your “grave duty” to protect yourself and your family. Innocent human life is so infinitely precious that even the Catholic Church itself understands that it cannot be left solely to the care of so-called “proper authorities”. If Barack Obama does not value all innocent human lives, he certainly does not value yours.

Capital Punishment

For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” [2266] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
This is probably the most misunderstood piece of Church doctrine. Several times I have heard liberals use the death penalty argument as a means to trap pro-life Republicans by saying such things as “You support the death penalty when the Catholic Church is against it so why can’t Democrats support abortions?” The truth is, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty in “cases of extreme gravity”. Sure, we all have aversion to killing other people but we’re not talking about people writing bad checks here. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject, take a good look at that phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. We need to stop allowing sexual predators to go Scot free as the liberals desire. It does not function well for the “common good of the family”. Or of the state.

The Environment

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” [2416]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” [2417]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)
    
Simply put, we take care of the planet because we are religious, not because the environment is our diety. Without human utilization, the environment becomes a vastness of unappreciated nothingness. Now let’s consider that last quotation: “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing”. This should stop PETA and other activists in their tracks. The higher order of things places people at the top of the totem pole.
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To cover the eight hundred or so pages of the Catechism would require more time than we have left before Tuesday’s election. I have attempted to cover those topics that I feel are of most value to Catholic (and, perhaps, other Christian) voters. This election may very well lead to the subjugation of the Church here in America. It is very important to remember that you cannot reconcile a vote for Barack Obama and membership in the Faith. To do so cancels out one or the other.
    
So, if you consider yourself a faithful, truthful Roman Catholic, then please vote against Senator Barack Obama on November 4th (already, John McCain has gained a 20% surge amongst Catholic voters and now leads Obama by 11%). However, if you believe that Senator Obama’s social, economic, and military policies are more in line with your values, then by all means go ahead and vote for the gentlemen. Just get the hell out of my Church; you don’t belong here – yet.

Reference
United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

INFINITE AUTHORITY: Why you can’t be Roman Catholic and support Barack Obama

Cross posted from Right Truth.

By R.J. Godlewski

“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to do evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” Catechism of the Catholic Church [407]

Usually, I am quite reserved when it comes to people’s political views and beliefs, so long as it represents an honest reflection. It is when dishonesty arises do I become terse and nowhere is this more evident than when “Catholics” try to subterfuge official Church dogma to support their personal political agendas. We’ve seen this as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among others, have perverted their faith for political gain. There can be no greater amount of hate then I have towards such people. However, I will tame my desires for an Inquisition and simply proceed with outlining how adherence to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with the liberal Democratic Party.
    
As Senator Barack Obama is now the de facto leader of the Democrats and although he is not Catholic himself, I will still use his beliefs against him to show Catholics why they cannot accept these policies and remain faithful to the Mother Church. In brief, no Roman Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience. Because I, as a member of the human population, am ill suited to discuss matters of divine revelation, I will defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as final authority on matters of Church doctrine.
    
If you claim to be Roman Catholic, especially in public, you hold allegiance to these truths. Any deviation is grounds for major sin; any swaying of the “flock” against them threatens eternal damnation. Roman Catholics should never – ever – vote for any person, support any organization, or harbor any action that goes against these beliefs. Period.

Abortion

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin” [2273] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994,607)

 Simply put, the Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception and no earthly authority – state or parent – can deny this fact. People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would have you believe that the Church only recently adopted this doctrine. They are very wrong:

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 [2271] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 606).
    
This not only silences the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but it highlights the grave infraction of a “Christian” such as Barack Obama who vehemently opposed law protecting children born live after failed abortions.

Homosexuality
 
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” [2357]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 625).
    
Can anyone add anything better than “Under no circumstances can they be approved”? Judge people by what they do, not by who they are.

Spreading the Wealth

The responsibility of the state. ‘Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society  [2432]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 643-644).

In other words, if people break the law through greed and corruption, then throw them into jail. Otherwise, the state has to keep its hands off for “responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals”.

Furthermore, the concept of “those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor” and “work effiiciently and honestly” means that paychecks fall under what we in the marine salvage industry call “no cure no pay” agreements. Simply put, if you don’t work you don’t get paid. A simpleton could understand that so why thousands of college-educated Obama supporters can’t is beyond me.
    
However, I still believe in “fair wages”. Nobody likes ecking out a living in a minimum wage job. I didn’t like it. I’m not sure if Barack Obama ever earned minimum wage as a post-collegiate adult, but I bet that he wouldn’t have liked it if he did. The point is there is a world of difference between someone toiling their way through a hot, dangerous factory and someone who simply doesn’t want to work. Fair wages is a two-way street – eliminate all those industry-destroying “I’m only going to do my particular job at fifty bucks per hour” automotive jobs and lower the cost of living for everyone else. Unions kill jobs when they make people lazy. At their salary, they should be able to fill the shoes of nearly every position within their area (while working in computer software for General Electric, I couldn’t plug in a computer printer because that was a client union job. That kind of employment socialism needs to stop).

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’[2427]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 642)
    
Barack Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” convoy just took a direct hit. That reference about “no work, no eat” comes straight from 2 Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” (3:10).  Remember when God Himself, the one who multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, came down to earth for a vist, He did not work as a “chartiable organizer” as some liberals propose. No, he worked as a carpenter. He worked with his hands in Joe the Carpenter’s shop and today would probably work well in Joe the Plumber’s shop too. No way could an office worker endure a Crucifixion. 

Self-Defense

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not’” [2263]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 603-604)

Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 
…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s” [2264]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” [2265] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm” [2266]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he wants to take away your right to own guns and punish you for protecting your life. Yet, in doing so, he is denying you your “grave duty” to protect yourself and your family. Innocent human life is so infinitely precious that even the Catholic Church itself understands that it cannot be left solely to the care of so-called “proper authorities”. If Barack Obama does not value all innocent human lives, he certainly does not value yours.

Capital Punishment

For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” [2266] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
This is probably the most misunderstood piece of Church doctrine. Several times I have heard liberals use the death penalty argument as a means to trap pro-life Republicans by saying such things as “You support the death penalty when the Catholic Church is against it so why can’t Democrats support abortions?” The truth is, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty in “cases of extreme gravity”. Sure, we all have aversion to killing other people but we’re not talking about people writing bad checks here. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject, take a good look at that phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. We need to stop allowing sexual predators to go Scot free as the liberals desire. It does not function well for the “common good of the family”. Or of the state.

The Environment

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” [2416]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” [2417]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)
    
Simply put, we take care of the planet because we are religious, not because the environment is our diety. Without human utilization, the environment becomes a vastness of unappreciated nothingness. Now let’s consider that last quotation: “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing”. This should stop PETA and other activists in their tracks. The higher order of things places people at the top of the totem pole.
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To cover the eight hundred or so pages of the Catechism would require more time than we have left before Tuesday’s election. I have attempted to cover those topics that I feel are of most value to Catholic (and, perhaps, other Christian) voters. This election may very well lead to the subjugation of the Church here in America. It is very important to remember that you cannot reconcile a vote for Barack Obama and membership in the Faith. To do so cancels out one or the other.
    
So, if you consider yourself a faithful, truthful Roman Catholic, then please vote against Senator Barack Obama on November 4th (already, John McCain has gained a 20% surge amongst Catholic voters and now leads Obama by 11%). However, if you believe that Senator Obama’s social, economic, and military policies are more in line with your values, then by all means go ahead and vote for the gentlemen. Just get the hell out of my Church; you don’t belong here – yet.

Reference
United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.