Sunday, October 23, 2016

Consider a vote for Trump a vote for America

To the Christians who said in recent polls they would stop supporting Donald Trump following revelations of gross comments he made about women 11 years ago, I ask, what kind of country do you want?

Do you want Trump’s vision for America of secure borders, a strong military, empowered individuals who are free to achieve their dreams, and a solid commitment to our fundamental freedoms of religion, speech and self-defense? Or do you want Hillary Clinton’s godless vision of a borderless, vulnerable America that empowers corrupt big government at the expense of individual liberty? Because make no mistake: every non-vote for Trump puts Hillary one step closer to the White House and the end of America as we know it.

It’s understandable to find Trump’s vulgar comments a major turnoff, and recent conveniently timed and unsubstantiated allegations of his behavior toward women help nobody but Hillary herself. But less understandable is Christians who are unwilling to forgive Trump for his un-Christian-like comments, but are willing to ignore the greater sin of Hillary Clinton’s blatant anti-Christian and anti-American views that endanger us all.

“Never-Trumpers” who say they absolutely do not support Hillary will still help to put her in office by refusing to vote for Trump. Unless, that is, those offended by Trump really are OK with Hillary’s profound aversion to our right to bear arms. Or they accept her criminal use of and lying under oath about a private server to exchange classified information that put our national security at risk. Or maybe they don’t mind that she destroyed 33,000 emails after being subpoenaed for them. Or perhaps they agree with Hillary, who has publicly declared her “dream” for open borders, despite the criminals, disease, Columbian drug cartel and other evils that would accompany this, should her dream come true.
A non-vote for Trump would in essence be a thumb’s up for Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State, which were instrumental in destabilizing the Middle East, giving rise to ISIS and other Islamic terrorism. Abandoning Trump would give power to the woman who, in return for favors, accepted illegal donations to the Clinton foundation from anti-American countries who permit “honor killings” of women and outright murder of homosexuals. Saying no to Trump says yes to the woman who ignored desperate pleas for help from Americans under attack in Benghazi, lied to their loved ones about what lead to their murders, and who, when questioned about it, testily hissed, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Scrapping Trump out of moral indignation would make Hillary president, who promises billions of dollars for bogus “climate change” programs despite our staggering debt; who supports Common Core, but opposes school choice for the economically disadvantaged; who promises expanded Obamacare, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the importation of thousands of unvetted refugees from countries swarming with terrorists.

No doubt, many "never-Trumpers" vehemently disagree with all Hillary has done and all she represents. But those not voting for Trump because of personal feelings about him will be doing their part to put Hillary in office.

Most confounding though are those Christians in the poll willing to allow Hillary the power she seeks, when she crudely spurns the same Christian morals some Christians cite as their reason for rejecting Trump.

Hillary Clinton is rabidly pro-abortion, including partial birth abortion, and, she praises Margaret Sanger, founder of what became Planned Parenthood, who notoriously said, “Colored people are like human weeds who need to be eliminated.”

Hillary, of course, embraces the Democratic Party platform, which just adopted the most pro-abortion platform in its history, including promises to fund abortion nationwide and globally by overturning the Hyde and Helms Amendments, repeal state and federal restrictions on abortion, and to crackdown on pro-life sidewalk counselors at the expense of their rights to free speech and assembly.

Hillary celebrates laws that force nuns helping the elderly poor to violate their religious convictions by providing for mandated contraception and abortifacients. She embraces tyrannical LGBT politics, same-sex marriage, and fails to decry the snuffing out of private businesses whose proprietors refuse to partake in the celebration of what God teaches is sin.

Christian expressions in the public square are fundamental to American liberty, but Hillary has said “religious views need to change” regarding moral issues, and declared in a 2015 speech that “religious beliefs will not be a basis for objection” to morally reprehensible actions under her presidency. In other words, with Hillary, we could not live our faith outside the walls of a church. If that doesn’t give you chills, think about it some more. While Trump may not be the poster boy for Christian morals, he, at least, promises no threats to our Christian freedoms.

Achieving a liberal social agenda requires the demolishing of these Christian freedoms, and Hillary made it clear in the second presidential debate that she would use the Supreme Court to accomplish this by stacking it with justices who uphold her leftist ideology. Not once did she mention the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold it. In contrast, the potential nominees Trump has named are all committed constitutionalists.

Add to a stacked Supreme Court the likely use of executive orders, and Hillary would be unstoppable in stripping us of the freedoms and security we hold dear. I cannot speak for all Christians, but I can ask, is rejecting Trump because of his vulgar ways really worth a Hillary presidency at the expense of our country?

It’s imperative to see the bigger picture. The president we elect will select Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members, and other high ranking officials to move us toward that candidate’s vision for America. So we need to decide: Do we want to preserve America, or do we want to give it away because we cannot get past the boorish comments of a candidate?

We are all obligated to be good stewards of God’s gifts – and one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed upon us by God is America herself, which has been the greatest force for good and the greatest experiment of individual liberty and prosperity the world has ever known. It's true that we don't know what kind of president Trump would turn out to be. But we do know what kind Hillary would be. She has told us so herself.

Sitting out the election or leaving the presidential circle on the ballot blank are not options, nor is this election about our personal feelings about Trump. We have a country to save from the guaranteed ruinous and malignant policies of Hillary Clinton. It’s that simple and it’s that serious. Like it or not, and though certainly not perfect, Donald Trump is our best hope for preserving America, and it is our solemn duty to play our part in at least trying to make that happen.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Beware of Hillary's contempt for Christians

On the Yahoo homepage as of 11:35 am, Oct. 13, 2016 (click on images to enlarge if necessary):


Expanded view when you click on the headline:

And the notice you get when you click on “Read more”:

I suppose I give HuffPo credit for running it in the first place, but am not surprised that they had second thoughts on exposing the truth about Hillary Clinton.

The original post is in reference to the leaked emails between Hillary Clinton and her campaign adviser, John Podesta, who talks about instigating a revolution among Catholics to protest the Pope by calling for a "Catholic Spring", and which refers to Christians and evangelicals as people who should be attacked. Following Hillary's previous public comments that religious beliefs would not be valid grounds for moral objection to things like abortion and euthanasia under her administration, is there any doubt as to what in the works for America?

Please, everyone, open your eyes at what is happening. Just like Nazi Germany fanned flames of hysteria against the Jews, accusing them of conspiracy and theft of jobs, it can happen, and is happening, today in America. Only this time it is the Christians who are being maligned as the enemy, as hateful bigots guilty of discrimination. Hillary does nothing to turn back this rhetoric; indeed, she spreads it.

Look past the Hillary-friendly soundbites on tv. Please know what is truly at stake here for America. This is not about me, a Catholic Christian being offended. This is about a woman who wants to be president and who promises to use her power to undermine the most fundamental freedom of religion, a freedom that is the cornerstone of America. A freedom under serious, threat -- a threat that would impact all of us, no matter what your personal politics are. Don't be fooled by the spin that would gladly bury the truth about Hillary. 

Take an honest look at what's really at stake and put America, not personal feelings, first. 

Monday, October 10, 2016

Voting as a Catholic in 2016*

*This is a column from The Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Archbishop of Denver. Even for those who are not Catholic, I thought this contained profoundly relevant points and wanted to share. 

From Archbishop Aquila:
I have voted in every presidential election since 1972 and I have never experienced an election like this year’s. Both candidates are disliked, lack credibility, and have made comments that make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. The American public is fed up with politics as usual and with the establishment in both parties. So, what should Catholics do when we vote in November?

That question is one that I have been asked by the faithful more this year than in any previous election. Recently in a dinner discussion with a group of Catholics, the conversation turned to politics and became vigorous, as some at the table supported Clinton and some Trump. All eyes turned to me and one of them asked, “Archbishop, what do you think?”

First, I shared my aversion for both candidates. Then I said that they need to reflect on the platforms of both parties, with an emphasis on the human life issues. Everyone at the table knew well the teaching of the Church on life and the dignity of life. They knew that Catholics in good conscience cannot support candidates who will advance abortion.  All pretty much agreed that, when it comes to life issues, Catholic politicians on both sides of the aisle have put party ideology before their faith and living their faith in the public square.

This is the most important guidance I can give: allow your ongoing personal encounter with Jesus Christ and the Church to guide your political decisions. I say this because we believe that the truth about ourselves and the world we live in is revealed in and through him. Our society suffers and has suffered for quite some time because too few people live an integrated life – one that does not divide “the personal” from “the public.”

This year there are some critical changes to the two major parties’ platforms that some at the dinner were not aware of.  Most important is that this year the Democratic party platform calls for the overturning of the Hyde Amendment, a provision that both parties have voted to include in the federal budget and on other spending bills for 40 years. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal taxpayer money from being used for abortion. The platform is aggressively pro-abortion, not only in funding matters, but in the appointment of only those judges who will support abortion and the repealing of the Helms Amendment, which prevents the U.S. from supporting abortion availability overseas. Conversely, the Republican party platform is supportive of the Hyde Amendment and just this year strengthened its support for life by calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, banning dismemberment abortion and opposing assisted suicide.

Our conversation then turned to the understanding of the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience, and the ability for faith-based organizations like the Church to provide charity through shelters, hospitals, homes for the elderly, etc., without fear of government interference and the existence of a respect for religious values.

In that vein, the subject was raised of the Health and Human Services mandate. This regulation requires the provision of contraceptives, sterilizations and some abortifacients through employer’s health plans. Most surprising to me was that all at the table were practicing Catholics who are involved in their faith, and a couple of them had neither heard of the difficulty the Obama Administration has created for the Little Sisters of the Poor, nor the litigation that has occurred trying to force them to violate their consciences.

Catholic voters must make themselves aware of where the parties stand on these essential issues. The right to life is the most important and fundamental right, since life is necessary for any of the other rights to matter. There are some issues that can legitimately be debated by Christians, such as which policies are the most effective in caring for the poor, but the direct killing of innocent human life must be opposed at all times by every follower of Jesus Christ. There are no legitimate exceptions to this teaching.

The health of our nation depends on a deep respect for human life from the moment of conception until natural death, and the future of our society depends on how we protect that right. If we don’t, eventually we will go the way of Rome and Greece and other great civilizations that have risen and fallen.

Some, both in politics and in the Church, have stated that it is the Church that needs to change her teaching to include abortion, same-sex unions, and even euthanasia. Yet, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to Sacred Tradition, the Church cannot change her teaching on these issues without denying Christ. She would cut herself from the vine and only wither away, as promised by Christ. The further we move away from Jesus Christ and his teachings, the more will our churches empty.

We are where we are today because too many Catholics and other people of faith have embraced the ways of the world and not the ways of Christ. They have not served as leaven that transforms society, but rather have condoned evil and the throw-away culture that Pope Francis frequently reminds us to reject.

When we fail to do this, the government will step in to fill the void. Indeed, the government will become “god” and impose its beliefs on the citizens. One only needs to look to the Health and Human Service contraceptive mandate, or the attempt by President Obama to force a transgender agenda onto public schools. We may even soon see the federal funding of abortion and the approval of physician-assisted suicide in Colorado. We are witnessing the dictatorship of relativism and the erosion of true freedom. And as Pope Francis often preaches, the devil gets in the mix quickly, especially when people no longer believe in God.

So my advice to Catholics in voting in this presidential election is to first look at who forms you and your conscience. Is it your personal encounter with Jesus Christ and the Church, the voice of God which cannot contradict the truth or revelation, or is it the ideology of some political party? Secondly, look at how you have been a leaven in society. How have you sought the common good and the values of the Gospel, especially by serving the poor, the needy, the unborn and the dying. If you truly live your Catholic faith, you will not find complete alignment with any political party, and that is okay.  Thirdly, look at how each party platform supports human life from conception through natural death, the freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience, the family, and the poor. Finally, do vote, as every Catholic has an obligation to participate in the political process.

For many, the presidential election will involve a choice between the lesser of two evils. On the Colorado ballot, we will also face the evil of physician-assisted suicide, known as Proposition 106. In conforming our hearts and minds with the Gospel and its clear teaching on life, all Catholics are called to vote “no” on this issue. A “yes” vote only furthers the throw-away society, and the culture of death. You will be hearing much more on this in the days and weeks ahead. Let us keep our country and state in our daily prayers, praying for God’s protection and blessings in these challenging, difficult times in which we live. And let us in charity pray for the conversion of those who support a throw-away culture of death!
I did not write the above content, nor do I intend any copyright infringements. This is solely for sharing purposes only. 

Thursday, September 29, 2016

This is affordable health care...really?

It's been a long time since I've posted here! I had some big changes in my life these past couple of months that spread me really thin...something had to go. Unfortunately it was my blog for the time being. Am still quite stretched, but wanted to come on and say hello to you all. I hope your summer was great and that you are all doing well!

What inspired me to post today, albeit in a short, quick manner, was a somewhat elderly locksmith I met today. He is a Vietnam vet, a patriot, a hard worker, and an all-around great guy from all I could tell. We started talking about our country and where it's headed. In a nutshell, he told me he was a lifelong Democrat until Bill Clinton came along and gave dishonesty a new face. From there, it's only gotten worse and as he put it, today's Democrats are hardly the Democrats of the "little guy". Fast forward to today, and you can use your imagination as to what he thinks of Hillary.

But what put a heavy feeling in my heart for him is how Obamacare has impacted him. This man makes no more than $6,000 a year. Yet he and his wife pay $1500 a month for their required healthcare insurance. On top of that, their annual deductible is $15,000 a year. Tell me, how is that affordable healthcare? And when will people realize that having health insurance does not mean you have access to affordable healthcare?

My monthly premium is several hundred dollars less than the locksmith's, but my deductible went from $850 a year to $6000 a year. What good is "insurance" when I have to come up with six thousand out of my own pocket before I can have so much as an earache paid for? I was also informed by my health insurance provider that my monthly rates will be going up in November but they would not tell me by how much. Why November? Could it be they are pulling for a certain candidate who supports Obamacare (and worse...wants a single payer system) and therefore the health insurance companies want to wait until after the presidential election to let us know just how bad Obamacare is? I wouldn't be surprised.

All I know is that I cannot fathom how this elderly locksmith and his wife can possibly be told they are better off under the grossly misnamed Affordable Healthcare Act. What a lark. Unfortunately, real people are caught in the crosshairs of this disgraceful law forced upon us all (except for the President and Congress...who are all exempt from it).

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

More leftist lunacy: Let's put a carbon tax on babies

“Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?” That was the audacious question NPR’s website and All Things Considered radio show asked recently as it promoted a college professor’s “radical” proposal that people need to have fewer children because of the “prospect of climate catastrophe.”
The academic proposed a “carbon tax” on children to decentivize procreation in wealthy nations.

NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented these “moral” arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is “by not having them.”

A philosopher, Rieder told students that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances.

According to the NPR piece, Rieder and his Georgetown University colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl, have a plan to save the earth which was described as “carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich.” They are asking richer nations to “do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents.”

Rieder described his strategy as a “carbon tax, on kids,” and said it should be “based on income” and raised for “each additional child.” He claimed that punishing people in wealthier nations for having large families is “not like China’s abusive one-child policy” because it targets the rich rather than the poor. Apparently he doesn't know that even China is abandoning its one-child policy because of the negative consequences it is discovering, like Russia and Japan are, that reduced populations pose on a country. But I digress.

Rieder claimed to have the moral high ground, saying, “It's not the childless who must justify their lifestyle. It's the rest of us.” In the radio program, he said his family is “one and done” even though his wife Sadiye formerly wanted a “big” family.

When a student asked, “What happens if that kid you decided not to have would have been the person who grew up and essentially cured this,” Rieder called it a good question. But then he added that “valuing children as a means to an end...” is “ethically problematic.” 

Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left. What I want to know is, why is it that every time some pseudo-intellectual proposes fewer people are needed, they never volunteer to lead the way? They always want their spot at Earth's table, but want to deny it to others.

These people obviously hate humanity whom they consider pests to be eradicated in the name of phantom climate change. They purposely ignore earth's actual climatic history to promote their suicidal agendas of population control as a means of climate control. 

The bottom line is, there is, in general, no overpopulation problem (there are plenty of corruption-induced government problems that lead to things like poverty, however). In fact, I am willing to concede that the earth is overpopulated by misanthropes who think there is a population and climate change problem. Maybe we should put a carbon tax on these environmental extremists for the ludicrous anti-human ideas that they spew.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Hillary's trickle-down economics bad for everyone (except maybe the wealthy)

When it comes to America’s future, at least in terms of the economy, what do we want? Do we want the stagnant European, cradle-to-grave “security” socialist model, or do we want the American model of vigorous growth, low taxes, and individual liberty to get things moving again? It should be a very clear choice.

Today Hillary Clinton reveals her plans to raise taxes on individuals, the wealthy and corporations, increase and expand social security, and increase spending for tax-funded infrastructure and education. In other words, she revealed her own version of the tax and spend formula of European socialism.

Trump has not mentioned expanding Social Security or Medicaid, but he also doesn’t plan to touch them for cuts either. He does, however, plan to lower taxes for every bracket of individuals and corporations, cut regulations, encourage domestic energy expansion, and, while his plans for infrastructure spending are larger than Hillary’s, he is planning on predominantly private - not taxpayer-funded –investment.

In other words, Trump supports a recipe for vigorous growth in the economy – the very growth essential to fixing our economy. In fact, we simply can’t fix the economy without growth, which creates jobs and prosperity across the board. Obama spent $800 billion in tax dollars on ‘shovel ready’ jobs, yet our infrastructure is far from where it should be. Where did that money go? Now Hillary wants to spend an additional $300 billion of taxpayer money on infrastructure that should have been taken care of under Obama, and that will provide temporary jobs only for the most part.

But Hillary’s plan sure does sound good. In fact, some might ask, what’s wrong with Europe and why wouldn’t we want to model America after it? After all, Europe has lots of “free” stuff, lots of paid holidays, supposed 'fairness' in punishing the wealthy. Why would anyone want to oppose it? Because European socialism doesn’t work, that's why. It is not a sustainable system. Much of it is bankrupt, the population is rapidly declining and aging, and there has been virtually no growth for many, many years. And if America continues on this European-style path, we will be in the same sinking boat.

Hillary mocks Trump’s economic plan, saying it’s a return to old ways of “phantom” trickle-down economics. But what about Hillary’s sure-fire trickle-down economics? Stimulating the private sector does not happen by raising taxes and increasing regulations. Corporations socked with higher taxes never in actuality pay higher taxes; they simply raise the prices on their goods and services that the middle and lower economic consumers have to pay. Higher taxes simply reduce corporate jobs that the middle and working class depend on. Strangling regulations simply make it harder for companies to grow or even to stay in America. 

Hillary’s plan will trickle down alright – directly in the form of higher prices and fewer jobs for the rest of us. That’s hardly a recipe for middle and working class success, and it’s hardly a recipe for overall growth in America. All it would do is make the "ruling class" more powerful, while the division between the "wealthy" and the rest of us gets that much wider.

Nonetheless, Hillary is determined to make us more like Europe, while Trump wants to keep us like the America we were meant to be. Which one sounds better to you?

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Focus on what Hillary will do, not on Trump comments

In telling Americans at a press conference this morning with the Prime Minister of Singapore that Donald Trump is "unfit" and "woefully unprepared" to be president, President Barack Obama has made it clear that he intends to carry out the rest of his presidency devoted to one goal: getting Hillary Clinton elected to finish the job he started of dismantling America. (Let's not forget, by the way, that Obama, the community organizer who was truly unfit and unprepared to be president, said the same things about Mitt Romney four years ago).

Yes, Donald Trump says things we all wish he wouldn't say. But the future of our country is so incredibly perilous that we actually need to be less concerned with stupid comments and more concerned with what Hillary Clinton will do to what is left of America.

Obama knows Hillary will carry on with his disastrous economic and foreign policies. He knows she will stack the Supreme Court with anti-American subversives. He knows she will throw open the borders and give aid and comfort to the enemy. He knows she will support disastrous tax, minimum wage and "free" college policies. He knows she will dismiss religious rights and do little to reverse the growing marginalization of US Christians as she herself has announced by saying "religious views need to be changed" to pave the way for things like taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. He knows Hillary is unimaginably corrupt and dishonest, that she collects millions of dollars from foreign companies, that she refuses to name our enemies in the fight against terrorism. No matter. She will carry on Obama's disastrous policies and that is all that matters. 

The thing so many supporters of Hillary don't seem to understand is that America would likely not survive her presidency. Worse, they don't seem to grasp that they will actually not like what comes after America, the once great nation now teetering on the brink of disaster. They don't even seem to know what this disaster would involve. 

As Obama himself noted, “There has to be a point in which you say this is somebody I can’t support for president of United States. There has to be a point in which you say ‘enough.'” 

True. But his warnings should be directed at Hillary. It is time those of us who recognize the value of America and want to preserve her exceptionalism said ‘enough’ to Obama, ‘enough’ to the slanted media,  'enough' to Hillary's lies and corruption, and ‘enough’ to the left’s destruction of America.