Liberty, Tyranny and The First Amendment

In the years after America won its freedom from Great Britain the colonies drafted and eventually approved a Constitution. To secure ratification of the new founding document concessions had to be granted, including the addition of a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments were intended to secure our basic liberties. Including the right of a person to observe their faith as they see fit.

The Obama administration has put that basic First Amendment right under attack. The Health and Human Services department, issued a mandate declaring that because Catholic social service programs don't serve only Catholics they aren't worthy of a conscience exemption regarding provision of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs. So in essence the church is being punished for living out the words of Her founder....Matthew 25:34-36, tells us what Christ expects of us, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick. He didn't instruct us to only do those things for people who believe the same as we do.

In fact one of His most illuminating parables is the story of the Good Samaritan, a man who did all of those things for someone who was essentially his enemy.

The HHS mandate was for all intents and purposes crafted by the ACLU. The ACLU wrote a mandate that is in effect in only three states (California, New York and Oregon.). Even within that mandate there were ways that Catholic social service agencies could find relief. However the new mandate from HHS closes all of those avenues.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the head of the HHS is herself a Catholic, which makes the forcefulness of this legislation all the more disturbing. However it is heartening that Sebelius has been denied Communion both in Kansas and Washington, D.C.

All of this leads me to the thought that we once fought a war to ensure our freedom of worship, now it is under attack by our very own government.

So our government is now telling us how to practice our religion, how to live our faith. That doesn't sound very much like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in force, with 169 of roughly 183 bishops issuing statements condemning the new mandate. The assorted Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals all urge the faithful to action.

Indeed action is sorely needed. As most of the letters no doubt urge us as faithful Catholics to do we should fast, pray and contact Congress and the President as well as Secretary Sebelius. Urge them to reconsider and rewrite this mandate.

Support Marco Rubio who recently introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 to Congress.

These are the times that try men's souls...Words as true now as they were in late December of 1776. Thomas Paine was referring to the then months old War for Independence.

He might just as easily be describing another tyrannical act by a far more worrisome menace. Duly elected officials trampling on the rights won by the blood of the very people who Paine wrote to some 236 years ago.

Surely the great martyrs of the past, men and women who were fed to lions; or boiled in oil; or crucified; or burned at the stake, must be looking at this persecution and urging us to fight and defend the faith they died for; the Truth that cost them their lives.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

I Didn't Want To Be An Advocate...I Just Wanted To Be Dad...

So I am beginning to realize that I will never not be in use as an advocate for Tommy. It's not what I wanted, but it is what he needs. I just wanted to be a daddy, not have to worry about whether the world was fair to him or for him. It turns out I won't get to make that choice.

I never quite understood before all the ways the world stacked against people who weren't in the fat part of the bell curve. Even though I don't think I was in the fat part of the bell curve either, I was at the top end of it, he is not.

It's amazing and a little amusing the things you begin to notice when you have a disabled child. Lack of a sidewalk for a wheelchair, stairs, things I always took for granted that make navigating with him a lot more of a challenge.

You also notice the looks from waiters and hostesses at restaurants as they seat you and you tell them that you don't need a kids menu for him. That one you learn to ignore. Because it takes too much energy to worry about whether or not the kid serving you at Applebee's understands the finer points of a G-Tube; or what the phrase NPO means.

Flying with Tommy has been an interesting adventure into the mind of the TSA as well as stewardesses. They look at his sealed cans of food like they are little bombs and like they need to open them. Fortunately they haven't, or perhaps it is unfortunate; because it means I can't demand the federal government reimburse me for the cost of replacing that food.

The first time I really flexed my advocacy muscles was before Tommy ever came home. He would eat and then reflux his entire meal, causing lots of aggravation for everyone and of course concern for him. Well his doctor had ordered a medicine for him that didn't help and in fact made a bad situation worse. In my youthful exuberance I politely informed the doctor that next time someone gave Tommy that medicine I was going to punch him in the face.

Fortunately I wasn't arrested; Tommy was taken off the medicine (Zantac, if I remember correctly) and we were all the happier for it.

I guess I should have realized then that it was only just beginning. I am a dad, but I am also his voice in this world and I have slowly come to accept that the latter means more, because it is the bigger job.

Liberalism and Catholicism Don't Mix Pt. 2

First I would like to point out I missed a great quote from scripture on the penalty for idleness in my last post. In 2nd Thess. 3:10 St. Paul admonishes his charges in Thessalonica, if a man will not work, he gets no share of the food.

Now on to today's point:

It seems to me that to be a good liberal, you must consent to the wholesale slaughter of innocent life at the hands of the Supreme Court's disastrous Roe vs. Wade ruling. Roe was perhaps the most insidious, harmful, destructive, piece of judicial activism ever in this nation's history, I'm not even sure Dred Scott was a worse decision.

Somehow the Court found a right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, securing legalized abortion. Mind you I think even if the Court had ruled in what should have been the correct way, send it to the states' and say you make your decisions, most states would have legalized abortions. Now I am not saying as I just pointed out that I think without the ruling we got in Roe that abortion doesn't happen here; merely that Roe turned what should have been a state-by-state issue into a big national issue.

Because it became a national issue it has become a rallying cry for feminists, and many other groups. Groups which think that their right to decide how to treat their own bodies overrides all else. Including whether a child created out of their decisions has a right to live.

And let us not talk falsely now, that "clump of cells," is a baby, a human life, period and nothing else. Those cells aren't going to morph into a banana plant, or a file cabinet. It is a human life.

To be fair there are liberals who don't believe in the senseless killing of unborn babies; just as there are supposed conservatives who do. There are even some who masquerade as Catholics and believe in the legality of abortion, a certain wild-eyed former Speaker of the House, comes prominently to mind.

As I mentioned awhile back the liberals seem intent on doing whatever they can to protect this right, that is to them sacrosanct. The conservatives in the House should use this to their advantage in all spending bills for the next two years. But they won't, Boehner, doesn't seem to have the stomach to stand up for his faith or principles.

I am growing less and less surprised that Holy Mother Church doesn't forbid Communion for these politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, but deny it by their voting record. After all it seems to me that they are as the rules say notorious public sinners and should be denied Communion until they are ready to hold and profess all that they are supposed to.

Canon 915 states the following: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Now to be sure some arguments can be made about just what it means to obstinately persist in grave sin, but I think if Ms. Pelosi, were to be denied the Sacrament a time or two she just might understand the seriousness with which her faith disagrees with her political view. Personally I was surprised when the Holy Father had an audience with her and she didn't come out excommunicated.

I feel like it is these cafeteria Catholics in positions of power that do far more harm to the perceptions of the faith then nearly all of the other issues we face combined.

Liberalism and Catholicism Don't Mix

I am continually struck by the number of people in this country who continue to try and be liberal and Catholic. It just flies in the face of any sort of common sense. You can not be both. The liberal agenda in this country is so far away from the values one should hold as a Catholic.

Yet liberals love to try and co-opt Jesus, love to try and cite him as the patron saint of liberalism. Yeah, not so much. Perhaps they need to go back to their Bibles and reread the Gospels. I have to give credit for today's post to Rush (Limbaugh, not the rock band) listening to him on Monday really brought home the idea.

Liberals love to mock Jesus and Christians, except when they think they can use Him to push their agenda. As Limbaugh pointed out, Christiane Amanpour opened her Sunday news show with the popular question, What Would Jesus Do? But she had bastardized the question so badly it becomes almost mockery even as she tries to use it seriously:

"As Christians around the world celebrate Easter, we ask some of America's most influential pastors.  In these turbulent times, has America lost its way?  Taxes and budget cuts.  What would Jesus do? Amanpour, This Week aired 4-24-11"

Clearly she is using the question to distort Jesus' social welfare message. Which the left always abuses into the idea that we need to somehow use the government to create a dependent class.

Rush answered her quite well:

"You talk about what would Jesus do? Would Jesus approve of politicians spending money we don't have on programs we don't need?  Jesus warned against sloth and self-bondage.  Would he approve of the Democrats creating an entire underclass dependent on government?  They think so.  That's how they define compassion.  Would Jesus approve of people wasting their lives sitting around blaming all their problems on everybody but themselves?"

Jesus was all for helping the poor and the downtrodden, to be sure, but he wanted the help to come from fellow men not from a monolithic, confiscatory government structure. Hence the whole discourse on doing to the least in Matthew 25:35-46.

I know that there are some out there saying but what about (Matt. 22:21, Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:25). Look I am not saying we shouldn't pay our tax burdens, of course we should. Just that our tax burdens shouldn't be used to create dependence on government in order to live.

Even the chief architect of the American Welfare state Franklin Roosevelt knew that dependence on government was a terrible evil. Little consolation considering the damage that has been done by his New Deal policies but still...let's look back at a quote from his 1935 State of the Union address:

"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.

To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Well here we are 76 years on and the Federal Government has only done more to grow "this business of relief." And people wonder why this country is on the wrong track. We were warned at the start, by the man to blame, that this would happen.

Instead the government continues to ensure more and more future generations will be reliant on the government to keep their lights on, and food in the fridge, and pay their bills. Sure, that sounds like "When I was naked, did you clothe me; hungry did you feed me?" In reality, I don't think it's quite what the Lord meant.

This is just a look at the social justice/welfare differences between Jesus and liberals, I plan to look in depth at the other areas where they differ as well. Consider this part one of a multi-part series

Boehner, GOP, Stumble on Dems Sacred Cow

The near shutdown of the federal government has perhaps shown the GOP-led House of Representatives the way to pass any future spending bill until they take back the other branches of the government.Follow me on this one for a second.

The Democrats initially refused any spending cuts in the budget, pushing us closer and closer to the shutdown. It wasn't until late Friday when they finally blinked and by then they had shown their colors. In getting the Democrats to agree to the 38.5 billion in cuts, the GOP had to give up their rider that would defund Planned Parenthood. That rider would have saved another 318 million dollars.

Now in giving it up, they forced the Democrats to at least vote on it in the Senate where it likely won't pass but can likely be used in some 2012 campaign ads. More importantly as we watched Harry Reid and his caucus draw their line in the sand, it showed a way to get if not everything we want at least a lot of it.

The House should submit every spending bill with that very same rider attached to it. In doing so the Democrats will have to compromise somewhere and the GOP can say, "we take away the rider, you give us these spending cuts."

When Paul Ryan submits the 2012 budget he should ensure that it has the Title X rider, as well as riders to defund NPR, the NEA and all these other ridiculous wastes of tax dollars. Then to inch the Democrats closer to the numbers we need to get to we slowly peel away riders. Now eventually these things will have to get through but they can wait for a year and a half until we get all three branches of the government back. As of right now we only control as Speaker Boehner said "One half of one third of the federal government."

Now perhaps, the GOP should have shut the government down and pushed a little harder to get the things they really wanted; perhaps now it's too late to have real ammo for the coming battles of the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget. Who knows? Let's see how things shake out from here, I think Boehner, Cantor and Ryan can still make some hay with these coming battles.

They better, we gave them the House to do just that and so far they have if not let us down entirely, certainly left us with a bad taste in our mouths. I was rooting for the shutdown and was sad to see it not come to pass I think the GOP lost a good chance to win the PR war and really show whose side they were on.

Call this one strike one Mr. Speaker. Let's hope you learned something from the story of the Mighty Casey.

America's Chihuahua in Chief.....

On April 9, 1986, Ronald Reagan called Moammar Qaddafi, "The Mad Dog of the Middle East". Yesterday, his successor couldn't even be bothered to name the man accused of strafing his own citizens with the military assets of their own country. Yet Barack Obama always tries to push some sort of connection to Reagan. It makes me want to vomit every time I hear someone bring those two names up in the same breath.

President Reagan believed very strongly in peace. Peace through strength. He didn't feel the need to go pick a fight with anyone, but we would damn sure be ready should someone pick one with us. Obama on the other hand has spent his time in office, apologizing for America and continually weakening us at home and abroad.

As it is it was nine days, nine, seriously nine days before Obama could even be bothered to mention that there was something afoot in Libya. His handlers claim there were some scheduling conflicts..... WHAT!!!! You are the President of the United States, when the world is on fire it behooves you to clear some time from your schedule to address it Mr. President. Could be worse it was what three weeks before he acknowledged the oil spill last summer.

Seems when his buddies/donors are in trouble he sure has lots of scheduling conflicts preventing him from addressing those issues. Remember the vitriol hurled at George W. Bush for not wanting to terrify a group of third graders by running out of the room on 9/11. Where are those voices decrying Obama's lack of mentioning Libya.

The greatest fighting force in the world has not been sent to a forward area to project our force. We could easily put a carrier group in the Mediterranean Sea and also put some assets near the Persian Gulf. Yet, we haven't done any of that.

The Middle East is on fire from our allies to our enemies and we are sitting on our hands and hoping that nice things happen....really...We could with just a little effort likely turn what could potentially be a bad situation into a positive and create stability and democratic ideals in the region.

Yet we sit on our hands and weakly condemn violent force used by a man who was once the world's number one terrorist. A man who was responsible for ordering the bombing of the La Belle Disco in 1986; The Pan Am Lockerbie bombing in 1988. These two events killed nearly 300 people and injured almost as many.

I have said since he was elected that Obama was a second term for Jimmy Carter, but that isn't even a strong enough criticism. Carter was woefully inept to be sure, but I don't think he was trying to weaken the US intentionally, he was just overwhelmed by the job. Obama's foreign policy decisions make Carter look almost hawkish by comparison.

Watching the election results in 2008 as it became clear Obama was going to win I became very sad for the US. I wondered how bad things would get during what I tried to assure myself would be a single term. Now we are getting our answer.

Here's looking forward to the next Reagan, whoever he (or she) will be. Check out this Gallup Poll showing how bad Obama's doing across the country, looks like as of right now 2012 will be a Republican Landslide.

Who Won't Get Credit For Middle East Change

Before I get to my main point today go read this amazing story about Egypt's Muslims and Christians supporting each other. I'll start by saying that story ties in with a lot of what I intend to talk about today.

I'm starting the bulk of this discussion by ignoring the dissonance of whether it was right or wrong for the US to initiate combat in Iraq. I thought it was then and I think it was now. Regardless of all of that in the last month we have seen populist uprisings all through Northern Africa and the Middle East. I don't think it is coincidental that as Iraq has gained more self-control and seen several successful elections, that the rest of the Arab Street is taking notice and attempting at least to throw off the chains of dictators and tyrants.

Throughout his administration President GW Bush said many times a free and independent Iraq would indeed change much in the Middle East. His words are being borne out on the streets of Cairo, Tripoli, Tunis, Manama and Beirut. Tehran is also bubbling with protest fever. Admittedly some of these protests have been against "pro-American" leaders, but so what. The bottom line is these people want the right and the ability to make their own choices and not have governments foisted on them from anyone else.

I remember watching President Bush's second Inaugural address and being touched by this passage:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Clearly he saw something the rest of us didn't yet see, call it the reverse domino theory.

Here's the thing about all of this, the media, well the mainstream media anyway will come up with a whole host of reasons for all of this rioting and desiring of freedom from these countries, and I almost guarantee none of it will mention that President Bush said for the last five years of his administration that Iraq's freedom would lead to other nations demanding the same thing.

They will come up with any thing they can to attribute this sweeping change, but none of the credit will be placed at the man's feet where it belongs. The media HATES George W. Bush, they can't stand him. There is no way they will have the stones to write columns praising the Bush Doctrine.

Meanwhile the despots are vowing to "fight until the very last bullet," as Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi's son recently pledged.

It is now in the hands of Bush's successor, Barack Obama to see to it that these protests are heard; that voices are not silenced; and that all that can be done to end these oppressive regimes is done. I am not advocating America show force or attempt to use these moments to install further puppet governments. Rather the last remaining super power needs to merely let the world know we see what is going on and we will as another president said more than 50 years ago "......We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

On the one hand all of the turmoil scares me a little from a geopolitical world view that we could be seeing the beginnings of the next and possibly last great war of mankind. On the other hand, though it could even if there are some bumps in the road, be the stepping stone to some real change in one of the most violent, turbulent regions in all the world.

Here's hoping that the peaceful toleration of Egypt's Muslims and Christians wasn't a one-time affair. We can all hope that this changing climate brings much peace to the Cradle of Civilization and that indeed civility is returned to such a historically rich part of our big green marble.

And here's hoping that someday the man who saw all of what could happen with the ouster of one terrible regime will be recognized properly. George W. Bush might have done with one limited war what thousands of years and hundreds of people could not. Bring peace to the Middle East.

Happy President's Day everyone....or should I say Happy George Washington's birthday (observed). The holiday is properly only intended to be a celebration of our first President under the Constitution. Go here and read up on today's holiday.

Web Links Wednesday

It's Humpday, everybody and I feel like I unintentionally started something last week due to a Spokane trip that will be a Musings tradition. Web Links for Wednesday. Without further ado.

• Saw this today, gotta love this kid's exuberance. Gotta say I might be hard pressed to avoid doing the same if I was that close to Benedict XVI
• A great piece on the unconstitutional health care law. Usually read this blog for the Catholicism but a great piece by my favorite blogger/law student at Shameless Popery. 
• The English text of Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Issued in 2007 it is basically calling for a return or at least no impediments to some of the older forms of worship including usage of the Tridentine Mass....for all of you who grew up before Vatican II that would be the Mass you remember from your childhood. Unfortunately the Vatican website doesn't have the document in English yet, so I had to dig a little. 
• Great blog from the Heritage Foundation about the 100th birthday of the greatest president of the 20th Century.
• Rush's take on Roger Vinson's ruling about Obamacare.
• All Things Super Bowl and NFLish from Sports Illustrated. My own prediction is on the way I made one last week, but may contradict it this week, tune in and find out. 
• The homepage of America's favorite quiz show. Looking forward to taking the test again next week. Here's hoping I pass again and get on the show this time.
• If at least one of the many websites covered in the blanket of this link doesn't make you laugh, check your vital signs.

Who is Going to Clean Up This Mess?

The coming election cycle should be an interesting one. Now I know a lot of you are probably tired of the last election cycle. Indeed they seem to merge into one never ending melange of political ads, posters and sloganeering. I am interested in where the GOP will find their candidate.

Some things we know already. It won't be Mike Pence, the former Indiana representative, officially took himself out of the race earlier this month. In recent times the Republican nominee has almost been decided by whose turn it was. Witness Dole '96 McCain '08. Two men who largely earned their nomination as a sort of honor for years of service. I don't think we will have the same situation this time.

The GOP needs to do one thing in the next year, close their primaries. Too many states have open GOP primaries and we allow too many "independents", "moderates" and assorted others too much sway in choosing our nominee.

All that being said here is my take for who is on the radar. The following names are in no particular order.

• Mike Huckabee -- The former Arkansas Gov., 55, has solid credentials in the conservative department, endorsed by Chuck Norris in 2008, the southerner has enjoyed exposure on Fox News Channel since then and has a national profile. He won the governorship in Ark. with the largest percentage of the vote ever for a GOP candidate. I like him, but if Chuck Norris couldn't put him over the top...who can? Not to mention the last former Arkansas Gov. to live at 1600 Pennsylvania, was a bit of a schmuck. But he was from the other party. 
• Tim Pawlenty -- Minnesota's former Gov. The 50 year old Pawlenty recently placed third at the New Hampshire Straw Poll behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He is a self-described social conservative and has said Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly. Another guy I like, but I am not sure he has enough national recognition.