Daily Archives: January 19, 2009

A lift van can sure make a difference in someone’s life: here’s a story about one

And I can vouch for that wholeheartedly!
I got my van during the first weekend in December, and it’s really changed my whole life. What I did before, I can do better. And I’m gradually willing to do more than I did before, even in spite of my pain.

Now I just wish I could find an easy way to make my townhouse more wheelchair accessible–or get out of it and into a doublewide.

Advertisements

An Article that lists more reasons Catholics who voted for Obama should be going to Confession and then doing severe penances

1. Funding of international Population Control
2. Funding of condoms to prevent AIDS
3. Support not just for embryonic stem cell research but for human cloning
4. Opposition to abstinence only sex education.
5. Opposition to giving Christians any voice in the international stage, because, according to this _Washington Post_ article, Christians are allegedly the “minority,” and radical secularists are the “majority.”

"Saint" Martin Luther King Day

A friend of mine calls Martin Luther King “Saint Martin” because you’re more likely to see his picture in many Catholic Churches these days than to see the picture of a saint.

Nine years ago, when Mary and I attended our first Mass together, it was Jan. 16, and MLK day was Jan. 17. Priests were supposed to be talking about “Respect Life.” We attended Mass at the USC chapel, and the priest said, “We’re supposed to talk about ‘Respect Life’ Today. I’m not going to talk about abortion, because that’s too controversial. Instead, I’m going to talk about the Confederate Battle Flag, because that’s a respect life issue, too.”

Anyway, the main reason I bring up Martin Luther King is that, now that the Republicans have proven their total lack of interest in really ending abortion, and many pro-lifers are calling into question the way we’ve made the issue too “Partisan,” I think the example of MLK is worthwhile.

King was, ideologically, more a conservative than a liberal. He leaned Republican. However, he largely refused to adopt a partisan position. He felt the civil rights movement was too important to be tied to either party, and he had a great deal of bipartisan support. Most Republicans favored the Civil Rights Act.

However, Goldwater and a few Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds, arguing it should be done at the state, not federal, level. This sounded too much like “States’ rights”, so King backed LBJ, leading to vast numbers of African Americans registering as Democrats and to the perpetual stigma that “Republicans are racists,” that “conservative” is a euphemism for “racist” and that “Democrats favor racial equality”.

Something similar has happened with the pro-life movement, except we haven’t nearly enjoyed the success of the Civil Rights movement.

The Bush Administration has proven that the pro-life movement has become far too tied to the Republican Party, even as some of the top leaders in the movement, and many of the strongest pro-lifers “down here in the trenches” actually support third parties. Our position is largely attacked, not by any inherent flaws, but by the alleged hypocrisy of our allegiance to Republicans.

That’s not to say I buy the arguments of people who say they’re “pro-life” and voted for Obama. But I do acknowledge that such a thing as a “pro-life Democrat” can exist, so long as that pro-life Democrat actually *does* something.

The right to life is too fundamental to be bound to any particular party’s agenda.

Farewell to Dubya

I’m sorry. But I can’t get around the absolute adoration people still have for this man. It sickens me.

There have been moments in the past 8 years where I’ve swelled with enthusiasm for his rhetoric–and prayed that for once he’d keep his promises. Four and a half years ago, he spoke at the RNC convention and gave a laundry list of promises for his second term. He talked about encouraging flex time, so workers with families could arrange their schedules around their families’ needs. He talked about encouraging companies to offer health insurance, etc. He talked a fair tax. He talked about all sorts of stuff. None of it happened.

He has spent the last 4 years trying to justify torture and other war crimes. Has everyone forgotten Harriet Myers? It’s perfectly clear that his primary motivation for every judicial and Justice Department appointment has been to justify his own war crimes.

When Alito and Roberts were going through the nomination process, each one said he had no intention of overturning _Roe v. Wade_. Bush said repeatedly he had no intention of overturning _Roe_. When the justices were nominated, Bush’s spokesperson reminded everyone that the president never promised to overturn _Roe_ and that he appointed justices who shared his views.

Then the only case they’ve heard since being appointed is _Gonzalez v. Carhart_, which reaffirms _Roe_ and provides a roadmap of how doctors can bypass the federal partial birth abortion ban.

They praise Bush for “banning embryonic stem cell research,” but conveniently ignore how he was the first president to *fund* embryonic stem cell research with the convenient excuse that the embryos in question are already dead.

I realize he aint’ nearly as bad as Gore or Kerry would have been. But there are many things Bush did *not* do that he *could* have done. They talk about the Mexico City Policy. Clinton signed *three* abortion-related executive orders which overturned *three* previous executive orders by Reagan. Bush only overturned *one* of them.

Bush had control of both houses of congress for enough time to actually make some changes . Many pro-lifers have presented many strategies that could have worked: exercising Congress’s authority to set the jurisdiction of federal courts, for example. One simple act of Congress could have overturned _Roe_ and given the question back to the states.

Mike Huckabee argues that there is a *lot* a chief executive can do to attack abortion from every direction, including the kinds of “preventive” policies the liberals like to tout.

Bush has squandered his opportunity and the goodwill of pro-lifers for 8 years.

Apostolic Visitation Report

Many sites are reporting fragments of the Apostolic Visitation Report. As I’ve said before, I think the document says more by implication: like emphasizing that it is a survey and a “blunt instrument” and that it may not be a fully accurate portrayal of how (implied “bad”) things really are.

Lifesite News has an interesting analysis.

I’m reserving any detailed commentary till I’ve had time to read it myself, but the PDF of the report is linked in the headline of this message