The Citizen has been occupied by a few pressing summer projects. Our house is now one of the prettiest on the block, the side door is unlikely to fall off anymore, and the front gutters work!

Coming soon are essays on student’s religious rights and the nature of hell. A deeper exploration of the problems with collective salvation is in the works as well – this is an issue that is truly dangerous.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010 John Martin

  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010 John Martin

What lessons have we learned?

Threaten to sue. The secular left have used this tactic for decades. The Citizen is pleased that it seems to work for us as well.

Flood the ‘blogosphere’ and social networks. The day the story broke, the Citizen joined dozens if not hundreds of bloggers and essayists who condemned the university’s actions. Wrongdoers hate being exposed by the bright lights of notoriety.

Write a letter. Then write another. Then ask all your friends to write. Bombarding the wrongdoer with a flood of emails and physical letters likely demonstrated to them that their actions were noticed. And disliked.

Fight. Catholics are not popular in many colleges. For that matter, we aren’t that popular in public education. When we stand up and fight, it’s amazing how quickly our adversaries back down. The Citizen often tells people that Catholics have the same rights to express our opinions and pursue our agenda in the public square as any other ‘special interest’ group.

Roll up them sleeves and swing.

Congratulations Professor Howell. Thank you for helping us push the tide of secular, liberal bigotry and intolerance back.

A question for all those Catholic for Obama and Social Justice fans – where were you when Catholic values and principles so clearly came under assault? Too busy justifying supporting the most pro-abortion administration in history? Too busy trying to twist the Magisterium to fight your ‘liberation theology’? Too busy to stand and fight for a practical Catholic?

Of course you were.

Second District Race

The Citizen has been following Daria Novak for quite some time. She worked for the State Department under Ronald Reagan, she supports reforming health care so that it compassionate and affordable. She argues for limited government, fiscal restraint, local control over local issues, and is pro-life. She has also run a responsible, issues-driven campaign free of the muck-flinging that has become the standard for many candidates. Mr. Courtney, the incumbent, is a disappointment for the Citizen. A Catholic, Mr. Courtney enjoys a perfect rating from NARAL. His support for a flawed health care bill and his demonstrated belief that he needs to vote the party line instead of representing the interests of the 2nd District, make Mr. Courtney a bad choice for the practical Catholic.

For these reasons, the Citizen is thrilled to support Daria Novak’s candidacy. She has the values, experience, and perspective that we need representing us in Washington. She has campaigned hard, earned the party endorsement, and will be a great representative for eastern Connecticut.

Attorney General Race

This is the only other race where a clear choice quickly emerged.

Martha. Dean has come under attack lately, being accused of advocating the decriminalization of cocaine and heroin use, according to her primary challenger. She also was accused of advocating student gun training in the classroom. The Citizen did some investigating. Ms. Dean argued that the war on drugs was unsustainable – and she has a point. According to some sources, the federal and state cost of this war is some 30 billion dollars – for 2010 alone. Unfortunately, the drug wars along the borders of our southern states clearly demonstrate that this money is a drop in the bucket for an illegal industry that likely makes 30 billion dollars in a matter of weeks – if not days. She isn’t advocating drug use  - rather, she argues that what we are doing is not working.  Her comments about guns and schools were also taken out of context.  Ms. Dean is also pro-life. She has spoken out against the death penalty and abortion. While the Attorney General has little to do with some of the issues she discusses, it is refreshing to see a candidate explain her position on important issues. This is quite  rare this year.  With  deceptive advertisements, coupled with very little information on his position on issues, Mr. Garber is an unattractive choice for the upcoming primary. George Jepsen, the democratic candidate, seems to advocate the same approach to the office that Blumenthal made infamous. We have had quite enough of Blumenthal’s anti-business, self-promoting antics … we don’t need a sequel.

The Citizen is pleased to support Martha Dean for the office of Attorney General.

Senate Race

Unfortunately, the field is littered with bad choices. In the Senate race, there is not one candidate that supports life issues. Mr. Simmons while a member of the House, voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. He has consistently voted to support abortion. If elected, it is unlikely that he will change – in fact, he has recently spoken in support of expanding abortion under the president’s so-called health care act. Ms. McMahon is also strongly pro-abortion.  Mr. Blumenthal is an unacceptable choice for a number of reasons. Peter Schiff comes closest – he argues that it is the prerogative of the states and the Federal government should have no role in these issues. While there are more issues than abortion in a political contest, this is – or should be  – the yardstick Catholics use to measure candidates. No clear pro-Catholic choice for the Senate race.

Mr. Schiff is the best of the lot.

Governor Race

We lack pro-life candidates running for governor.  Malloy, Fedele, Foley, Greibel….none of them shine. The Connecticut Catholic Conference sent a questionnaire to candidates. Only Mr. Foley and Mr. Fedele answered. Of the two sets of responses, Mr. Fedele was marginally more favorable to a Catholic perspective – at least on one financial issue. The issue concerned tax credits for private and religious school choice. Conversely, as Lt. Governor, he has been involved in the mishaps and follies of the Rell administration.  On life issues, neither expressed support for abolishing the death penalty. Both advocated requiring parents or guardians to be informed when an underage child seeks an abortion. In Connecticut, the current law allows a minor to have an abortion without notification. Both oppose physician-assisted suicide. Ned Lamont? In his failed run for Congress, he was an ardent supporter of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. In this election? Like many, he chooses not to advertise his position on his website. Take a guess. Dan Malloy? Another cipher – perhaps candidates believe that if they don’t take a position, no one will ask….

Foley? Fedele? Either one is the best in a field of mediocre choices.

Endorsements

For their positions, the Citizen can categorically support only two candidates.

Ms. Novak for the republican nomination – and hopefully – the 2nd District Connecticut seat.

Ms. Dean wins the support of the Citizen for Attorney General.

It is appalling that there are only two candidates that stand out as good choices for Catholics. In a state that is still about 50% Catholic.

  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010 John Martin

Anti-choice? I think its safe to assume she is referring to abortion; this is what the pro-abortion crowd likes to call pro-life. You see, they hate using that positive term pro with life. After all, who in their right mind would be anti-life? You would have to be a vampire or person who made millions off vampire lifestyle….oh, waitaminute. That’s Anne Rice. Seriously, Catholic teaching is very clear. Life begins at conception, and the Catholic church has very strict guidelines about the acceptable taking of life. The life of an innocent – and who is more innocent than the unborn – is never justified. Anne should have known that – but there are unfortunately a number of pro-abortion ‘Catholics’ floating around, so perhaps it was easy to get lost in that deluded mass of lost sheep.

anti-Democrat? Really? That’s a stretch. I guess her rationale might be….wow. I don’t have any idea what it might be. It may be the abortion thing. Or perhaps because the Church has some issues with the Obama health plan – for it’s failure to include protections against euthanasia, rationed care, and abortion. There are a number of Catholic Democrats – some of them actually good, practical Catholics. Unfortunately, a number of the luminaries of the Catholic political world are pretty bad Catholics. Pelosi, Biden, Dodd, Patrick Kennedy, Rosa DeLauro….unfortunately all of these politicians have supported legislation contrary to the teachings of the Church. Other than this, the Citizen just don’t see this anti-Democrat foolishness.

Anti-gay? Because the Catholic church has strong opinions about sacramental marriage and it’s roots in the Book of Genesis? The Church has strong sympathy for the plight of homosexuals. It believes – correctly – that it is an unnatural condition, contrary to God’s will. Having said that, I know several homosexuals who are regular church attendees. If the Citizen may simplify a complex precept, the Church believes in ‘hate the sin, love the sinner.’ As long a homosexuals don’t act on their impulses, they are not denied the sacraments. And to be candid, a heterosexual couple that is unmarried and sexually active is also not in a state of grace and therefor not eligible for the Sacrament of Communion.

Anti-woman? Wow. Is she familiar with the role that Mary plays in our faith? Oh – is it because we don’t ordain women as priests? Likely. We don’t – and it’s not like we hide our reasons why. I am not going to explain it- go and google the Catechism and read it yourself. Another silly argument.

So Anne Rice came back and now she’s bailed out again? Gee – maybe she had that idea for her ‘Christ the Lord books ‘ for  a while and figured that this publicity stunt would be worth a dozen appearances on the View. Certainly, her reversion made front page news in secular and Catholic magazines and newspapers. Websites, television news, EWTN…her reversion story – accompanied by a healthy plug for her book – was great, free publicity. Honestly, how many good people of faith would have considered buying a work of religious fiction from the woman who brought us the vampire Lestat? But a book that inspired a prodigal daughter to return to Holy Mother Church? Just in time for Christmas shopping?  Conversely, how many of the goth-vamp crowd would be interested in a book about the life of Christ?

Yeah – publicity stunt sounds pretty good. And her torrent of infantile and ignorant bile is making front pages again. I would not be surprised if there isn’t another book coming out real soon now. Surprise! A look at her website has an announcement about an upcoming book called ‘Seraphim: A book of Good and Evil.’ Interesting. Doesn’t sound too Catholic, though.

Am I mad at her? Absolutely. Will I pray for her? Of course. But – frankly – I would rather see people like her out of our Church. The unity of faith is stronger than mere numbers.

Maybe she is fighting the evil that lies in us all. Catholic doctrine recognizes that evil is an active and powerful force in this world. Perhaps the Citizen is too cynical and she is fighting that war. Perhaps she is truly under attack. Many men and women of great faith – Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, Saint Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross….all relate struggling with their faith. All of them wrote of losing their faith and struggling to regain grace. This is one of  the wonderful things about the Catholic Church. Luke 17:4 states:

If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

The Church will be ready to forgive you and take you back. The Citizen will pray that you gain the wisdom to take advantage of that grace.

  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010 John Martin

Fundamentally, on all levels, Walker based a large part of his decision on the belief – yes, belief – that the voters who supported proposition 8 did so out of a conscious and deliberate intent to relegate homosexuals as second class citizens. The vote was not one defending cultural and religious concepts of traditional marriage but an attempt to defame, denigrate, and deny homosexuals. It wasn’t a vote for something, it was an atavistic reaction, a tyrannical and hateful act against something.  This may be a valid argument on Rachel Maddow’s show or chatting with Keith Olbermann (I admit I don’t know what either of their shows are called), but for a sitting judge to use this assumption to base his constitutional reasoning is frightening.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Article I reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have emphasized the pertinent passage of this article. Mr. Walker makes a few leaps of faith that are not acceptable in a court of law. He applied the ‘liberty’ qualifier as the basis of his decision. By his reasoning, Prop 8 denied same-sex couples the right of traditional marriage and that this was a violation of the due process clause. In a state without civil union, this may be a valid argument – though it is a stretch. In a state like California – or Connecticut for that matter – it is a spurious argument. Equivalent does not have to mean the same. Equal does not have to be identical. Civil unions were compromises that were intended to satisfy the needs of all parties. Under the Civil Union, same sex couples had a mechanism to ensure they had access to the rights and privileges of traditional marriage. Health and life insurance, joint access to accounts, visitation rights in hospitals, prisons, and other restricted settings…essentially the same access to material and legal privileges. Obviously, this isn’t satisfactory for the gay community – for them the only compromise is one in which they get their way. And Judge Walker agreed with them.

Walker’s list of ‘facts’ is troubling – not only as they spring from his flawed interpretation. All of them are predicated on his belief that civil union is substantively different than marriage on a social and perceptual basis. Even if this is true, where is it the province of the court to engage in social engineering? As a jurist, his responsibility is not to look at motives but legal protections. It’s not his place to make a decision based on his belief that there is a perception of marriage as superior to civil union and that makes homosexuals feel bad. His responsibility is to examine the existing protections accorded under civil unions and determine if equal rights are assigned.

If Walker wants to engage in a little Constitutional justification, perhaps he should have examined the First Amendment. One of the arguments used in this case – and others – is the concept that marriage is not an instrument of the State, it is an instrument of the Divine. By mandating gay marriage, the state is imposing it’s will on the people’s freedom of religious exercise. Well, there are churches that support gay ministers and gay marriage, right? Sure there are. But if Walker thinks it’s acceptable for the state to encroach on the stated religious and moral beliefs of the majority in the interests of the minority, then the attitudes of these liberal churches are really inconsequential. Sorry.

The Citizen is already hearing a reader screaming ‘what about separate but equal’!!??  This isn’t the same. How many heterosexual couples are joined in what is essentially a civil union? The Citizen knows at least one heterosexual couple who simply went to City Hall one day, submitted their blood tests, got  their license and that was it. No ceremony, no reception, no fanfare. How many couples run off to Atlantic City and Vegas for what is undeniably identical to a civil union? Perhaps the playing field can be leveled.

Perhaps states can pass laws stating that all unions are civil unions. The idea of going to City Hall to get a marriage certificate is over. Everyone gets a civil union. If a couple wants the benefit of sacramental marriage, they would then find a church willing to confer the benefit to them. If the Unified  Rainbow Crunchy Church of the God-Goddess-Tree Spirit allows for gay marriage – fine. If the Catholic church doesn’t, well, that’s our prerogative too, isn’t it? By the same token, adoption agencies with religious affiliations should be allowed to set their criteria based not simply on civil union status but whether the union is recognized to be sacramental. Again, if a young woman is willing to place her child with the Unified Rainbow Crunchy Church of the God-Goddess-Tree Spirit, then she is accepting the fact that she is placing her unwanted child for placement in a family that celebrates love between couples with legs and roots… or whatever. By the same token, a young woman can place her unwanted child with a Catholic adoption agency, knowing that the child will be placed in a home that embraces Catholic values. Of course, this would never fly with the homosexual minority – they would sue for unrestricted access to everything they want.

It will only be a matter of time before this case lands in the Supreme Court. Kennedy leans liberal when it comes to individual rights, and even Scalia can be a cipher in such cases. The 9th Circus Court – and no, that’s not a typo – is irrelevant. Unless the lottery system assigns an unlikely panel, the liberal appeals court will enthusiastically rubberstamp Walker’s decision – after amplifying the arguments that are likely to sway the fence-sitting Scalia and Kennedy. After all, if you scream an opinion long enough everyone will accept it as a fact, no?

No.

There’s not much we can do save support the lawyers fighting to defend marriage. The National Organization for Marriage has a support page asking for donors. The Appeals Court largely ignores the public and the Supreme Court – well, the Supreme Court rarely considers public sentiment. At least overtly. Letter writing campaigns will have limited success. What will succeed is the amount of money that pro-marriage legal teams have at their disposal. If you are able to donate, do so. If not, pray.

A final note. There will likely be those who will castigate me as being hateful and mean-spirited. Nothing can be further from the truth. Nowhere do I vilify homosexuals as less then human or undeserving of protections under the law. I do take umbrage to your hubris. Homosexuals seem to insist that they have the constitutional right to anything they want – regardless of others. This culture of entitlement cuts across the spectrum – many groups of people scream that they are entitled. I leave you with this.

Try living as an openly gay couple in Kuwait or Pakistan. What is offered may not be what you want.

But deny that – legally speaking – that it is fair.

Nonsense.
In 2004, Howard Dean and John Kerry – both presidential candidates – delivered speeches at Loyola. The University was not concerned about losing the exempt status by engaging in political advocacy then. A member of the Obama administration, a Mr. Eebo Patel, is allowed to speak this summer. In 2006, Anne Coulter was heckled by a coalition of liberal student groups to the point she left the podium. Perhaps the reader sees a pattern?

Anyone who fears to allow their opponent’s voice to be heard is someone to fear. The French Revolution quickly became a nightmare when the various factions began indulging in their personal vendettas. The sans-culottes became the ‘storm-troopers’ for the most violent and revolutionary of these factions. They were were the working poor, most of them uneducated and easily swayed.  Today, tragically, it seems the sans-culottes of modern day America are drawn from the colleges and universities. Despite twelve years of primary and secondary education and further collegiate education, the modern day rabble is just as ignorant, just as barbaric, just as intolerant.

The Coulter appearance was opposed by a group calling itself LSCAB – Loyola Student Coalition Against Bigotry. On a website, there were photos of the protest. The Citizen is amused that one of them had a young man holding a sign that said

“Bad” things liberals have done: Woman’s rights. Civil Rights.

Just what is the history department at Loyola Chicago teaching these students?

The first national political party with a woman’s suffrage plank as part of it’s platform was Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. Roosevelt was a member of the original – and only effective – group of reformers. All conservatives, all members of the Republican party. Jeannette Rankin, the first woman member of the United States House of Representatives, was a Republican.

Civil Rights is another sacred cow claimed by liberals. Nonsense. The Republican party was formed to marginalize and ultimately end slavery. The Democratic party would resist this and – after the Civil War ended – sought to circumvent civil rights reforms. As late as 1964, the Democratic party fought civil rights legislation tooth and nail. Howard Smith, a democrat and chair of the Senate  Rules Committee, vowed to keep Johnson’s Civil Rights Act from a vote. republican senator Everett McKinley Dirksen was the great unsung hero of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without his tireless effort, this bill would certainly have died. And this is one example of conservative leadership in civil rights.

In fact, in the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Political opportunities for women and minorities has historically been available in the Republican Party. Congresswoman Rankin was the first woman representative. The first black judge, congressman, senator, governor, Secretary of State….all were Republicans.

Liberals tend to think that they are the party of progress. Let’s look at liberal progressivism. There is a growing body of evidence that the New Deal was a disastrous policy. Social Security has turned into an entitlement system that has grown beyond the wildest imaginings of Roosevelt. Johnson’s Great Society program promised to end poverty. Four decades later, we have a growing body of the idle poor, slaves to a network of local, state, and federal entitlement programs. Where is the progress?

What liberals do possess is the ‘big tent’. When you look at organizations like LSCAB, you see it’s member groups include gay and lesbian student groups, Amnesty International, various ethnic groups, and Vegans. These groups are bound together by a common thread – hatred of people who have views contrary to their own.

When Coulter came to Loyola Chicago, they rallied -which is fine. They attended the lecture. Again, this is fine. They heckled, shouted, and disrupted Ms. Coulter’s presentation. Which is not fine She also walked off the stage in 2006 during a speech at UCONN over hecklers. The same year, David Horowitz attempted to deliver a lecture on the threat of Islamic fascism - and was shouted off the stage. When Daniel Pipes attempted to argue a defense for Israel at the University of California, Muslim and Marxist student groups allied to shut him down with disruptive behavior. Star Parker was threatened, heckled, and abused at a Penn State lecture – her crime? Sharing her personal story about how a single mother with a job has an advantage over a single mother on welfare. These are just a handful of hateful, militaristic, thuggish actions by ‘enlightened’ liberals. Why? If the message of conservatives is so flawed, why are liberal humanists so adamant about silencing dissenting voices?

A good question. Conservative perspectives are contrary to socialism. Conservatives are often – but not entirely – religious. Religion is one of the enemies of the socialist state. Conservatives believe in limited government that emphasizes opportunities – especially economic. Socialists desire a strong central state that provides a modicum of material benefits for all. Conservatives believe that individual liberty is coupled with civic responsibility. Liberals believe that freedom should come with no strings attached. Conservatives believe that it’s acceptable for them to use their faith and moral beliefs to guide their civic decisions. Liberals argue that this is judgmental.

Judgmental. Interesting word. When conservatives state that they believe something is wrong, they are vilified - even if they are in the majority. When liberals take umbrage with a dissenting voice – they will not allow it to be heard.  Who is being judgmental?

A second student in that photo the Citizen  mentioned earlier held a sign proclaiming Anne Coulter was xenophobic, homophobic, and anti-choice. So what? Let her speak. Take her arguments and expose their weaknesses. Use the power of the school newspaper, social networks, and other avenues to counter her argument and make her irrelevant. Instead, they use the tactics of the mob, the brown-shirt, the sans-culotte. Why?

Two reasons. It’s easier to make signs and scream and shout. And – more important – maybe they don’t have a good argument to counter the voices of Conservatives.

President Obama signed an executive order. Big deal. The authority that lies behind an executive order is practically non-existent. There is no specific clause in the Constitution that confers this power. The closest thing to justification for the practice of the executive order is found in Article II

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Since 1789, this has been interpreted as meaning that the President had the authority to issue orders necessary to ensure the smooth operation of executive agencies and other instruments of government independent of constant congressional oversight. Until the Twentieth Century, there was essentially no public knowledge of executive orders. In 1952, the Supreme Court weighed in – for the first time – on the practice of executive orders. Executive orders have been used  for activities as mundane as establishing protocol or temporary appointments to the 1999 order that Clinton signed to authorize the use of American military force in Kosovo.

Perhaps the most important element of the Executive Order is that it only carries the weight the sitting president chooses to give it. Obama wrote an order limiting abortion. Tomorrow, he can write an order rescinding it. Congress can do nothing to stop it. The Supreme Court can do nothing. Bart Stupak can’t take his ‘yea’ vote back. It is over. I wonder if Professor Richard McBrien knows this. One hopes so – ignorance is so much easier to accept in a priest than active collusion.

McBrien quotes an article in Commonweal as an authoritative source. Unfortunately, the author of this article is equally ignorant of the true scope of the executive order. Both articles claim that the administration and the current congressional leadership have proven their willingness to act under the provisions once guaranteed by the Hyde Amendment. Nonsense.

How about the aggressive actions in Congress opening access to abortion in military bases at home and abroad? Did you hear about that, Professor McBrien? Or perhaps the comments VP Biden made to Kenya about writing access to abortion into their constitution?

It is unfortunate that a Catholic priest defends a president and congressional leaders who fought to keep the Hyde Amendment out of their patient care act. Why? If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were serious about preserving the existing protections for the unborn, then tell me why they were unwilling to compromise? Please, Father – explain.

Of course this article was written by a priest who last year wrote “…how far the Catholic church in the United States has fallen from the high standards of leadership that they [Bernadin and Hesburgh] set.”

Father McBrien seeks leaders who agree with the ‘seamless garment’ philosophy – even if it runs contrary to the Magisterium. This infatuation with the ‘social justice’ approach that is popular with the intelligentsia is unfortunate. It’s tragic coming from the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at Notre Dame. Didn’t they teach any American history in the Seminary? Don’t you know any history professors at Notre Dame?

Oh, of course you do – but they are socialist gospel activists too….how silly of me!

The Citizen lives in Connecticut. Chris Dodd, Joseph Liebermann, and Joe Courtney are his duly elected representatives. Courtney and Dodd enjoy high ratings from NARAL and openly and ardently support abortion. It is disconcerting that both of these men openly proclaim themselves as Catholics – Courtney is often seen taking Communion in the 2nd district. Lieberman’s approval rating hovers around the 70% mark, so even he is not a friend of the pro-life movement.  Yet whenever a vote comes up that involves abortion, someone will start the chain emails. All of a sudden, the people demand action. So we send our emails, make our phone calls, and get to feel smug and righteous because we struck a blow for life. Nonsense. You struck a blow for nothing.

Chris Dodd has been openly and actively pro-abortion since he entered the political arena. He’s not running for re-election – what pro-life candidates are running for his soon to be vacant seat? Blumenthal? He has no stance. None. This is never encouraging news. McMahon? She’s made some vague comments, leaning towards pro-abortion, but nothing conclusive. Simmonds – and don’t count him out – is strongly for abortion. A pro-life candidate? Sorry. Not this year.

Courtney has not hidden his support of abortion either. He’s another Catholic politician who doesn’t understand the Magisterium. Janet Peckinpaugh is pro-abortion. The Citizen leans heavily towards Daria Novak – she is a good Catholic candidate with a platform that reflects strong Catholic values. Matt Daly is another strong Catholic candidate. There are alternatives to Courtney and Peckingpaugh – if Catholics are sending out email rants over our Representative a year from now,  the Citizen will be vexed. We had two strong candidates and we failed to get them elected.

The important thing to remember about the current crop of our representatives is this: They are not going to care what you say because they keep getting elected. Let me repeat that with more emphasis:

THEY KEEP GETTING RE-ELECTED!

If the pro-life movement was serious about fighting, they would put their effort into something that actually made a difference. The pro-life movement needs to identify, train, support, and groom men and women to serve as members of our state and national legislatures. We need to create and elect our own candidates. Chris Dodd doesn’t care about the outraged phone calls. Courtney doesn’t care. The only time they care about you is when you step into the booth. If we want pro-life legislators, we have to find them and get them elected.

There is a crowded field developing for the 2010 races. If you are serious about changing the politics of abortion in the state and national arena, find the politicans who are pro-life and do everything you can to get them elected. Those are the important emails to send. Those are the important phone calls to make. Those are the important dollars to contribute. People will send dozens of emails on this vote and that vote – despite the futility of the effort – yet we can’t seem to organize to support pro-life candidates.

We need to start picking our fights more intelligently. We need to organize and hit the bricks to elect our people. We need to elect them and keep them in office. Only then will the phone calls on legislation be significant. Those will be the politicians who know that the power base that elected them can remove them. Dodd, Lieberman, Courtney, DeLauro….they don’t care. The pro-life movement is not a power base; it’s nothing more then a nuisance to them.

You want to do some good? Start organizing for 2010. If you are serious, email the Citizen. I will help you create your own local grassroots Political Action Committee.

In Luke  17, Christ told us “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you.” If we had faith that we could elect our own, we would. If we showed ‘Catholics’ like Courtney and DeLauro the price of forsaking our Catholic values is their office, our voices would be heard. If we organized, we would be mighty.

It’s time to stop braying in the wilderness. It’s time to stop sending out emails whining and crying about how unfair these politicians are – again. The Citizen is frankly tired of hearing it. It’s time to shake the walls of Jericho. That takes a loud trumpet and a lot of voices. Care to join me?

The Democratic leadership offer absolutely no means to pay for it.

Republican members of the Senate claim they oppose the bill because the leadership has not found funding for the $33 billion price tag. Most Republicans claim they support unemployment benefits – but they want the leadership to find an offset in the federal budget to pay for them.

This is responsible stewardship of the money the taxpayers have entrusted Congress with – they should be more mindful of how they spend our money.

The Citizen isn’t sure about your household, but when unexpected expenses arises in our household, we find out where we have to cut expenses to cover the new expenditure. Unlike Congress, most households are all too aware that our resources are finite.

The Citizen is not advocating against benefits for those in need – that is inhumane. But Congress needs to be a better steward of the people’s money. Nancy Pelosi sponsored or co-sponsored some $75,000,000 in earmarks this year alone.  Harry Reid sponsored or co-sponsored some $267,000,000 in earmarks this year. Congress has refused to submit a budget, using a parliamentary trick called ‘deem and pass’ to hide the fact that the spending of this leadership and administration is unsustainable.

On February 12th, president Obama signed the ‘pay-go’ bill. This bill required Congress to pay for spending with money they had in their ‘pocket’ and not borrow against potential future ‘earnings’.

Nancy Pelosi made this promise:

[Democrats] are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the new Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.”

Barack Obama promised to cut earmarks and ‘restore accountability’ in federal government.

“Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994.”                   – The Change We Need in Washington

Another broken promise. Another sign that this administration and this congressional leadership is willing to spend the wealth of the next generation to support their addiction to power and position.

Instead of passing unemployment bill extensions ad infinitum, the leadership might want to consider what they need to do to restore confidence in the American economy.