"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

Hey Catholics, VOTE!!!!!!

Your Ad Here


Anonymous said...

I intend, God willing, to vote in November. But I doubt the tide can be turned from the not so eventual disintegration of America.

Anonymous said...

If enough people vote the tide WILL be turned. We don't need term limits we just need to vote.

Dawn said...

Be careful which "Catholics" vote.

John Hetman said...

Another nice video that offers the momentary inspiration that sound and sight provide and then is forgotten. Better that many of our priests start to realize the danger that so-called progressive politics poses to moral and sanctity of life values in this society and to start start addressing them in their homilies. Their general silences in the last election helped to put into the White House one of this country's greatest proponents of partial birth abortion and his evil party.

Anonymous said...

The GOP is for Life? We voted for R.Reagan (1981-1989) and G.W.Bush (2001-2008)and abortion is still legal in this country.

Paul said...

The GOP is sort of for life, some of the time.

That's a lot better than the Democrats, who are essentially always for abortion, all of the time.

And I'm afraid I have to point out that a majority of Catholics voted for Mr. Obama, too. There's the core of the problem.

In the meantime, let's not engage in ingratitude to Reagan, who did more to stave off the collapse of this country than any mere politician should have been expected to do. He was a very great, and a very good, man.

If we can find another candidate half as good for 2012, we'll be very fortunate indeed.

Early Riser said...

Dawn - exactly. Didn't "Catholics" vote Obama into office? Catholics voting is not the issue. The issue is we have too many bad Catholics.

Paul - Reagan did some good things and some bad things. He was a politician (mere or not). Whether he was "great" or not is up for opinion. And as for the GOP, we're coming up on a decade when they are always for abortion all of the time in my state (California). One is just as bad as the other around here. They sold their pro-life campaign down the river when they endorsed Schwartzenegger and now every Republican nominee following (i.e. Meg Whitman) will need to be pro-abortion to follow suit.

geronimo said...

Let's look at some history. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 by a 7-2 vote. The next 6 Supreme Court vacancies were filled by Republican presidents! Let me repeat that since people can't or won't remember: the next 6 Supreme Court vacancies were filled by Republican presidents! If the Republicans were pro-life, we would have had an 8-1 pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. But of those 6 appointments, 4 were pro-death and only 2 were pro-life. Does that sound like a pro-life Party to you? Reagan was the worst of all - giving us Sandy Baby and Anthony Kennedy - two mental midgets who couldn't reason their way through a second-grade math problem if their lives depended on it.
So, no, I won't be voting. The two parties are two heads of the same dragon. If there were a true choice, I would vote. There isn't, and I'm not.
Americanism is a heresy - a form of national socialism or fascism. A nation that murders its own children does not deserve to survive. The sooner the better, so that we can start anew.

PattyinCT said...

Hey? didn't Catholic Vote Action come out with almost the same video pre-Obamanation? Hmmm...

Early Riser said...

Geronimo - we are very much on the same page there. I don't think the Republican Party from Reagan on has done much in the way of championing the pro-life cause. I will say that one of the things I admire about George W Bush was his ban on partial-birth abortions and the Mexico City policy. That was more than ANY president has done in quite some time.

Matthew Siekierski said...

geronimo, who controlled the Congress during Reagan's presidency? Who approves Supreme Court nominations?

Reagan wasn't perfect, but he certainly helped more than he harmed. He didn't have carte blanche with his judicial nominations. Remember Robert Bork?

However, I agree with you about the GOP in general. I won't vote for a candidate because he's a Republican, but I'll vote for a Republican candidate if he really opposes abortion (among other things). Too many Republicans pay lip-service to being pro-life.

geronimo said...

Matthew Siekierski,
It is the Senate that confirms Supreme Court nominations, and the Republicans controlled the Senate for the first 6 years of Reagan's presidency. The House has nothing to do with Supreme Court nominations. So, he could have had anyone he wanted for the first appointment and instead we got Sandy baby - nice payback for all the work the pro-life movement did to get him elected.

And I do remember Bork and how the Reagan administration left him out to swing in the wind when the bigots like Ted Kennedy strung him up. So, instead we ended up with Anthony Kennedy? It would have been better if Reagan left the seat vacant instead of appointing this imbecile.
Or he could have used his charismatic personality to actually get a handful of Senators to support Bork instead of letting Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden run the show.
My point is that, if the Republican party were pro-life, we would have had an 8-1 majority on the Supreme Court in 1991. But the Republican party is not really pro-life, although they certainly will take the votes of the pro-life rubes who keep voting for them.

Anonymous said...

I agree with geronimo, at least partly. I am fully convinced that given human nature combined with the degeneration of our society to the awful state we are in now (and it will only get worse), it is impossible for a truly an all-around good, honorable person with full integrity to get elected to federal public office, and most state and local public offices. He won't be supported by those with the 'pull' and the people won't elect him because they don't want to have policies that serve the 'right' cause. People will generally vote in their own self-interest, which automatically destroys the chances for any honorable candidate.

But where I disagree is in not voting at all. The answer is to vote third party for someone who is truly honorable. They may have no reasonable chance, but we have to vote if we want to criticize, and voting for a good candidate is still the right thing to do.

geronimo said...

I do vote for good third party candidates, when there is one. Many times I write in votes. But I do not need to vote in order to comment on culture and politics. "You must vote" has become another one of those unthinking mantras that replace actual thought in our culture. By always voting no matter what, you are giving legitimacy to the fascist racket that our system has become. Not voting IS a vote - a vote for "none of the above."

Post a Comment