"Fake news" hysteria prompts Facebook censorship of real news

Just like the left co-opted the word "hate" to apply to anyone who disagrees with their godless worldview, the left now is marginalizing any reporting of differing views as simply "fake."  Facebook officially jumped on this bandwagon when it announced plans to use a number of reputed fact-checker sites and otherwise liberal media entities to combat so-called “fake news.”

After taking stiff criticism for being a conduit in the recent spike in misinformation and hoaxes published to drive Internet traffic (e.g. headlines depicting famous people as recently dead, when they are, in fact, very much alive) Facebook will begin fact checking, labeling, and burying in its News Feed what it determines to be either a hoax or fake news.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that the website had the responsibility to make sure it “has the greatest positive impact on the world.” He added that “with any changes we make, we must fight to give all people a voice and resist the path of becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.”

It may sound good on the surface, but the concern lies in who exactly Facebook is partnering with to "monitor" the facts. Facebook has already been accused in the past of burying conservative-leaning information. It is now aligning with Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News and PolitiFact - all left of center entities - to manage its fact-checking activities. But how do we know these "fact checker" organizations won't take a story like the exposure of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts and determine it must be "fake news" simply because the details of a particular story don't gel with the worldview of the left?

All these third-party "fact-checkers" need to do is take it upon themselves to determine something to be fake, and the story then gets labeled as such and downgraded in the News Feed - in other words, buried so very few, if any, people will see it.

As reported by LifeSite News, while the third-party fact checkers are part of an international fact-checking network led by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida, there is some history among them of producing politically correct value judgments and reporting regarding things like abortion and other areas.  

In one recent instance, Politifact rated Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s October 2016 statement that Hillary Clinton supports abortion on-demand throughout pregnancy, along with partial birth abortion with taxpayer funding, as “false” even though Clinton has repeatedly stated her support for taxpayer-funded abortion and clearly confirmed her support for partial-birth abortion in the final presidential debate on October 18.

LifeSiteNews contacted Politifact in February requesting a correction of its classification of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s statement during a presidential debate that Clinton supports legal abortion up through an unborn child’s due date as “false,” providing verification though Clinton’s previous statements and voting record. Politifact did not respond.

Politifact has exhibited bias as well when reporting on contraception and abortion, and in another recent instance concerning Planned Parenthood and mammograms. It also has reported that no link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Meanwhile, Snopes faced criticism more than once earlier this year for showing pro-Hillary Clinton bias in its reports during the presidential campaign.

“Fake news” has remained at the forefront of media coverage since before Donald Trump’s historic election win over Clinton last month, with Clinton supporters claiming such dubious information helped propel Trump to victory.

With Facebook and other media outlets moving to save face for their respective part in the recent tide of misinformation disseminated, the definition of the term “fake news” continues to become muddy in post-election fallout.

Facebook’s approach opens the door to abuse and censorship of conservative, pro-life and other traditional viewpoints by not limiting its initiative to simple detection of sites that may not be legitimate while at the same time handing off the task of defining “fake news” to essentially liberal entities for the purpose of affecting traffic on the site.

Maybe this is the time to create a new social media website to counter to Facebook, reducing it to the liberal mouthpiece that it seems to be on the road to becoming.

With all the hysteria on the left about the Electoral College, conspiracy theories about Russian hacking, and now, condemnation of "fake news", Facebook's proposed solution to put liberal media in charge of filtering out real news hardly seems to be the most reliable course to take. 

Stein should reimburse MI for recount folly

I hope when/if the Presidential election recount in Michigan is complete, that Jill Stein will reimburse Michigan counties the approximate $12 million this bogus, outrageous recount will cost them. Money that could and should be used for police, fire, roads and other necessities will instead be used to feed the bizarre leftist attempt to block the inevitable that the left just cannot face: that Donald Trump will become President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

Of course, Stein has no intention of reimbursing our state of the astonishing expense she is forcing on us. Of course Stein has no chance of winning the state of Michigan even with a recount - that is unless it turns out 99% of the votes were counted incorrectly and actually were meant for her.

What I find most appalling is that, during her anemic campaign, Stein couldn't even raise enough money to air a commercial ad. But in the few days after the election she managed to raise over $6 million to help launch a recount? Gee, I wonder who might be behind her tactics and helping her raise these amazingly huge funds.

By the way, since when does a federal judge have the jurisdiction to interfere with a state's election policy and procedure? Since there is no way Stein could have possibly won the state of MI even with some allegedly faulty vote counts, she has no business perpetrating this disgraceful injustice on our state. It was bad enough a federal judge was even brought into this, but it is beyond comprehension that he would have allowed the recount to go forward given the fact that Stein is in no way an aggrieved party in the issue.

I love how the left went nuts when Trump insinuated he would have to wait to see how the election turned out to see if he would accept the outcome. Hillary Clinton, in response, went on a self-righteous rampage about the importance of respecting our election process and standing by its validity. Where is she now in denouncing Stein, who had absolutely no chance of winning anything, yet is literally taking millions of dollars from Michigan county governments, money that could have been used for things so much more useful than her giant egotistical need to disrupt our nation?

Michigan lawmakers are now considering legislation to discourage futile recount efforts by candidates who lose their election bids by an incontestable amount, forcing the candidate to foot the bill for the recount. What sweet justice it would be to see Stein have to pay us back for this folly. Am not holding my breath at this point, though.

Once again, the "party of love" shows its venomous hate

In the name of "Love Trumps Hate", childish "adults" are blocking traffic, smashing windows, and publicly threatening and mocking elected officials and their wives. This is the "get a sticker just for breathing" generation come home to roost. 

When you don't keep score at children's sporting events, when you get a trophy just for being on a team, when you're allowed to throw tantrums at grocery stores because your parents are not allowed to spank you, you then grow up thinking that the way to deal with disappointment is to act like a spoiled child. Of course, however, these adult children believe it is all in the name of love. What I want to know is, if this is love, what on earth would hate look like in their eyes?

Following Donald Trump's presidential victory, high school students put on a skit, with teacher approval, depicting the assassination of Trump. Protesters across America took to the streets blocking workers from getting to their jobs while they beat the life out of innocent citizens, smashed windows, and burned Trump in effigy. Teachers in California proposed a curriculum depicting Trump as a racist, sexist bigot, while others disappointed with the presidential election have outright called for Trump's death.

Meanwhile, Brandon Victor Dixon, an actor in the Broadway smash hit 'Hamilton' publicly called out Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was in attendance at a recent performance of the show. In an attempt to educate Pence about values and law and rights, Dixon's comments lead to raucous boos by others present aimed at Pence, who was merely politely sitting in his seat. 

“We, sir," Dixon called out from the stage, "we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

It's too bad Dixon doesn't seem to know that it is the Republicans who want to uphold those rights he claims to value so deeply. It's too bad that Dixon doesn't seem to know it is the Democrats who want to trounce on our freedoms of things like speech and self-defense. It's unfortunate that Dixon seems not to know that it is the Democrats who endanger our parents and our children in their sick support of euthanasia, abortion, and health-rationing ObamaCare. It's too bad the actor seems to have no idea that it is the Democrats who want open borders at the expense of security and safety for every citizen. And it's too bad that Dixon seems to be uninformed of the fact that it is the Democrats who hold the shameful history of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and voter suppression, and that it is the Republicans who fought against these atrocities every step of the way.

Dixon's knowledge level seems to be as top-notch as the vapid model who hosted the "American Music Awards" Sunday night and felt the need to do an astonishingly disrespectful imitation of soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump. What credentials this immature girl has to speak in such a public forum in the first place is beyond me. But more than that, what right does she have to mock anyone, let alone a legal immigrant who became a US citizen - an accomplishment the model should respect considering the fact that both her parents are immigrants?

It is unfathomable to witness the ignorant hatred of the left who then still have the audacity to claim, with a straight face, that they are the people of love.

So the left's cherished candidate didn't win. It's time to grow up and accept the outcome of the freedoms the left claims to hold so dear. If there were any actual leadership from the left, that leader would step up and tell these children-adults that vandalism, public mockery, depictions of and threats of assassination, and overall disrespect are not the ways to deal with disappointment. If nobody does step up to take the lead on proper behavior, the left will only continue to lose elections and power. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Electoral College not to blame for Clinton loss

I received a group email from a LinkedIn contact today asking me to sign a petition to have the electors of the Electoral College make Hillary Clinton president when they meet on Dec. 19 because, after all, she won the popular vote.

Yes, it's true Hillary received more votes overall than President-elect Donald Trump. But most of that is because Hillary won the states of New York and California, both of which have enormous populations (and, it's no secret, are very blue states). Trump won key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Fewer votes by population, perhaps, but a larger total of electoral votes. And that is a good thing, because it underscores that we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy. 

If we were a pure democracy that elected presidents based on popular vote only, those who live in smaller, less populated states would essentially have no say in a national election since the more populous states like New York and California could easily sway the election simply by their large numbers of voters. Candidates would focus all their attention only on those large states that could garner them the most votes, while ignoring the rest of the country. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to have our national elections decided largely by California and New York only.

For those blaming the Electoral College for Hillary's loss, think again. When you look at the country map after the election, it's a sea of red, punctuated by blue, heavily populated urban areas. What the Electoral College does is balance the influence of big and small states. The Founding Fathers did not want mob rule or "popular vote" elections for president. That would ensure the big states would elect the president. It is the same argument for having two houses of Congress: one voting by population, the House, and one voting by state with all states equal, the Senate. 

Think about it this way. If the Cleveland Indians won three games in the World Series by a 20-0 score in each game, and the Chicago Cubs won four games 1-0, by "popular vote" standards, the Indians should have been World Series champs. But it's not about how many runs you score, it's how many games you win that counts. With the Electoral College, the rural Kentucky voter has just as much chance of helping his preferred candidate win the state of Kentucky as the wealthy liberal Manhattan voter has of helping his preferred candidate win New York. And isn't it liberals who claim they are for all people, especially the "little guy"? Then they should celebrate the Electoral College for giving everyone equal power in the national election system.

Rest assured, Republicans have also questioned the Electoral College when it hasn't suited them. Nobody likes to lose, but if we were to base our elections just on where most people live, then we all lose because we are no longer a nation grounded in equality in one of the truest senses of the word: that everyone's vote counts. Why would we ever want to change that - unless we're all willing to move to places like California or New York. I'm happy where I am, thanks. 

Trumping evil - hope wins!

Despite the media and the entire left's bloodthirsty quest to sabotage the Donald Trump campaign, Trump's supporters prevailed to take our country back last night. Thanks be to God! Among many other things, Trump's victory snatched from the jaws of evil the likelihood of continued corruption and abuse of power, division & class warfare, recklessly open borders, the loss of America's sovereignty, a stacked, leftist Supreme Court, and the ungodly, unbarricaded pursuit of abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

There is not much to say right now except that evil was largely "Trumped" last night.  Of course, not all evil. Colorado, for instance, passed its assisted suicide ballot measure, and we do have to hold President-elect Donald Trump and all Republicans to their word to make America great again by reducing evils like ISIS, taxpayer-funded abortion, and the like. 

But the bottom line is that, with the election of Donald Trump, we still have work to do, but we have been given a chance, a safer context within which to do the work we must continue to do to ensure that conservative principles, values and common sense can once again lead America in the right direction. In other words, last night we were given the thing that President Obama promised, but failed to deliver: we were given hope.

Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen!

Vote: If for no other reason, for life itself

This is it.  Tomorrow either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected President of the United States.  No one else can win.

We know that Hillary Clinton should never be President. She is still proud of voting in favor of partial-birth abortion and she wants to use our tax dollars to pay for more and more of them.

Regardless of your party, there is no issue more important than life itself.

So please, please make sure you and everyone you know vote. And vote for Donald Trump who will appoint pro-life judges and support pro-life laws and religious liberty. Put aside your disdain for his personality and comments. This is not about us personally. It's not about how we feel, and it's not about making a statement against crassness. This is our one and only chance to stop Hillary and her incredible commitment to anti-life policies. Our only chance.
 
Please also vote pro-life in US House and Senate races. Pro-abortion Democrats should never control the US Senate or US House. 
 
Here is a comparison of the candidates on life.  Please share it and this message with all your contacts.

May God bless and protect the unborn, the elderly, and the USA.

Hillary plays the woman card with gender pay fear-mongering

On the campaign trail this past week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once again played the woman card by trying to depict women - once again - as victims. This time she pulled out the tired and untrue claim that women are systematically paid less than men. But let's look at it more closely in the hopes of bringing some truth to the issue.

Though there is a widespread perception that women are paid less than men on average, the perception goes wrong in thinking that such pay disparity is about cases when a woman doing the exact same job as a man for the same hours, in the same company or industry is paid less than her male co-worker. That is not, however, where the disparity lies. The "pay gap" simply looks at the median earnings of all men and women who are full-time workers, and because the average of men's earnings skew higher, feminists cry discrimination. But were they to take a closer look at the facts, they'd have to recant their accusation.

The fact is, men and women make different career choices for different reasons. A U.S. Department of Labor study found the average full-time working man works 8.14 hours a day, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Naturally, this would result in the man making more money.

Even more to the point, the natural differences between men and women result in different priorities, and therefore, different job ambitions. Women in general tend to seek jobs that offer comfortable and safe working conditions. In particular, women with children tend to choose lower paying jobs in return for companies that offer work-life balance packages that allow them to be more available for their children. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to seek work that can best support their families, which often means longer hours.

Men also are much more likely to take on dangerous or physically demanding jobs that most women simply don't want to do. You don't see many women working on oil rigs, construction sites, coal mines or the like. These jobs pay more because it's difficult to find people who are able and willing to do them. People crying discrimination need to understand that the oft-repeated statistic that women make on average "70 cents on the dollar compared to men" simply reflects an overall average of all pay for all jobs across the board.

But what do facts matter when Hillary can exploit an issue, using false premises, to score political points?

Another awesome homily on voting from the Catholic perspective

This has to be one of the best homilies about the upcoming election I have heard - and I've heard some wonderful ones. 

This homily, delivered by Fr. John Lankeit of the Archdiocese of Phoenix, needs to be shared with everyone and anyone who is voting in this coming election in the USA. Either read it below or watch it here.  Either way, please share this with everyone you know.

*****

1 27th Sunday OT (Year C) – October 2, 2016 HAB 1:2-3; 2:2-4; PS 95:1-2, 6-7, 8-9; 2 TM 1:6-8, 13-14; LK 17:5-10

Fr. John Lankeit:

"The Devil is a divider who will use almost any tactic to separate Christians from Christ...except for one. He doesn’t typically come right out and say, “Deny Jesus Christ!” because he knows that someone who loves Jesus would immediately reject the suggestion. 

So, he tends to use more subtle means and subtle words. But more on that later... For now, let’s deal with something closer to home, and very much in the forefront of many people’s minds: the 2016 presidential election. 

But let’s do so from a Catholic perspective. Let’s consider the intersection of the practice of our Catholic faith and the exercise of our civic duty, especially when it comes to voting. Let’s first acknowledge that there has never been a political party in the United States that is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue. 

That does not mean, however, that we are therefore automatically free to vote for either major party, because one party can be much further from Catholic principles on the most important issues than the other party. 

As a result of that, we are often faced with the task of discerning which party and which policies are most in line with Catholic teaching, and which ones aren’t. So many issues are subject to the prudential judgment of Catholic voters. 

What does that mean? It means that Catholics can legitimately disagree, for example, on the best way to address issues such as racial injustice, education, the economy, immigration and healthcare and still remain in good standing in the Church. There are other issues, however, which touch on matters of intrinsic evil—actions that can never, at any time, under any circumstances be committed, promoted or even enabled by a faithful Catholic. 

But setting aside issues of intrinsic evil for now, let’s consider some of the more common issues for which Catholics can legitimately exercise prudential judgment. One such issue is Affirmative Action. This program aims to eliminate perceived disadvantages that minorities face when competing, for example, for admission to college. 

In our nation, one party favors Affirmative Action to bring justice and balance in our multiracial society. The other party holds that it penalizes high achievers by giving limited spots in the college classroom to less qualified 2 candidates, while denying more qualified students access. 

One party sees affirmative action as a matter of justice...while the other party sees it as injustice. But, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a black person if that black person created a hardship for them getting the education they desired. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate? 

Another issue that falls under the category of prudential judgment is immigration. One of the major political parties seeks to allow immigration with very little restriction. The other party is concerned that unrestricted immigration leads to, among other things, non-citizens taking jobs that could be worked by citizens. 

One party favors open borders—the other favors “law and order”. Now, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a Hispanic person if the presence of that Hispanic person made it more difficult to pursue one’s career of choice. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate? 

Thank God we don’t have a candidate from either party who says that they condone such policies. Nobody in their right mind would say such a thing—that we could kill blacks or Hispanics—or anyone else—just for the sake of protecting personal economic or educational interests. Nobody would say it, but, as you’ll see in a moment... 

There is a candidate, in this 2016 race for president, who along with that candidate’s political party does, in fact, sanction the killing of blacks and Hispanics in the situations previously described...under one...particular...condition: That the black person or the Hispanic person is still in his or her mother’s womb. 

Now, this candidate and party certainly won’t say it that way, not publicly anyway. Instead, they use words like “choice” or “reproductive rights” or “women’s health” or other sanitized statements in order to cover up what abortion is and what abortion does. 

Now, before we go any further in discussing the extremely sensitive issue of abortion... I want to say a word to any woman in this congregation here today—or among those watching or listening on TV or radio—who has chosen abortion: God’s mercy is bigger than your sin and your pain. In ten years of priesthood, I have often been blessed to welcome a woman back to the merciful embrace of God the Father after she has admitted to, and repented of, her abortion in the Sacrament of Confession. 

A priest in such a situation has the privilege of assuring the woman that she has never lost the love of God the Father, nor her dignity as his beloved daughter, no matter what she did. And so I say to these women today: You do not have to hide from God any longer. I know it’s exhausting to pretend that your pain is not real, that your loss is not immense and that your choice was not devastating. But when you experience God’s loving mercy even after the abortion, you will really come to know and experience that God’s love in forgiving our most serious sins is even greater than His love in creating us. Your Father has been waiting for you for a very long time. It’s time for you to come home! 

So, now, having shared that important word with grieving mothers let’s return to the subject of our duty as Catholics in the public square. When we consider that a woman can walk into Planned Parenthood and have her baby put to death because she doesn’t want to jeopardize her education or career, we must acknowledge that the shocking scenarios described previously are not only possible...not only real...but also among the most common reasons for abortion in America. 

Even the word “abortion” has been drained of its meaning—we treat it like nothing more than a term that starts a heated debate rather than a procedure that stops a heartbeat. Many want to treat abortion as merely one issue among many—but that requires that a person pretend not to know what abortion is and what abortion does. 

So let’s stop beating around the bush with regard to the current presidential race: Do you know which candidate and party in this election promotes abortion and even promises to expand its availability here at home as well as abroad? Do you know that this candidate and party intend to make you and me pay for other people’s abortions with our tax dollars—something that has always been illegal? Are you aware that this candidate and party, which until recently, said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” no longer even bothers to say that it should be rare—but rather, that it must be available any time, any place, even up to the last moment that the fully formed, full-term baby remains in the womb? 

If you do not know which candidate and party I’m referring to, then you should not even consider voting until you do know! Ignorance in this area is unacceptable, because ignorance in this area costs millions of babies their lives and jeopardizes the souls of many Catholics voters. 

On the other hand, if you DO know which candidate and party want to promote and expand abortion, and you still intend to enable them to continue their war on the unborn with the help of your vote, then it is my duty as a priest to tell you that your soul will be in grave danger, especially if you present yourself for Holy Communion after casting such a vote with the full knowledge of what you’re doing. 

Every election season, when a priest addresses such topics from the pulpit, a certain portion of the population complains that he’s preaching politics: “A priest has no business discussing politics in church!” That’s what some people say. But what does God say to the priest whom He has designated to be spiritual father for the people entrusted to his care? The same thing he said to the Prophet Ezekiel: “...I have made [you] a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his [sin], but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his [sin], but you will have saved your life. (Ez 33:7-9) 

Another of the Devil’s tactics is to encourage us to make excuses for our participation in really bad things by appealing to other good things that we support, which we try to convince ourselves somehow “cancel out” the grave evil we enable. 

Take capital punishment, for example. If you bring up abortion, some people will say, “I’m against capital punishment...and if you’re against abortion, then you should be against capital punishment!” Fair enough. What is the biggest objection to capital punishment? That innocent people might be mistakenly put to death. And it must be acknowledged that innocent people very well could be unjustly executed due to the many flaws in our legal system. And this very reason for opposing capital punishment is precisely the reason that Catholics must never willingly support or even enable abortion with their vote. Because, while some innocent people have no doubt been put to death mistakenly through capital punishment, in abortion an innocent person is always put to death, and never by mistake. It’s always chosen...always intended.

If a person is against capital punishment, then, they necessarily must be against abortion because the intention of abortion is to knowingly and deliberately kill an innocent boy or girl—each and every time. 

What about war? People who vigorously oppose the wars in the Middle East, for example, often quote statistics on the great number of innocent people accidently killed in the crossfire. “Collateral damage”—the innocent people killed in war—is, perhaps the greatest tragedy of war. But if a person opposes the accidental killing of innocent people in war, while enabling the intentional killing of the most innocent human beings on the planet with their vote—well...this is hypocrisy of the most extreme kind. 

If a person opposes war because of the accidental, unintended deaths of innocent people, they necessarily must oppose abortion because the killing in abortion is neither accidental nor unintended, but always directly willed. 

Sometimes we hear the stupendously deceptive claim that a candidate or party will reduce abortions by improving economic or social conditions, while simultaneously promoting abortion as a right worth protecting. But let’s face facts: Abortion is not caused by economics or social conditions. Economic and social factors are, no doubt, circumstances that affect a mother’s decision in some cases, but they are not causes. After all, if eliminating abortion were merely a matter of economics, or access to healthcare, or other socioeconomic factors, then why do wealthy mothers also abort their babies? 

There are plenty of Catholics who, quite rightly, have criticized bishops and priests in recent years for not having spoken out more forcefully against the sexual abuse of children by priests. Why, then, do many of these same Catholics want to silence bishops and priests who speak out forcefully against killing innocent children? Why is opposing sexual abuse of children a matter of justice, but opposing the murder of children a matter of “preaching politics”? 

Regardless of the resistance, a priest must follow the example of Peter and John in the Acts of the Apostles when it comes to preaching difficult truths. To those who sought to silence their proclamation of the Gospel these Apostles boldly responded: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for [I] cannot but speak of what [I] have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19- 20) 

A priest is not only protected by the 1st Amendment (at least for now). He is also bound by the 5th Commandment—Thou Shalt Not Kill. If a priest doesn’t speak up for those most vulnerable in our society, and if the Catholic faithful don’t actively protect the most vulnerable in our society by refusing to enable their deliberate destruction with their vote, then such Catholics are condoning the killing by their cowardice. And what did St. Paul say to Timothy about cowardice in today’s 2nd Reading?  God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord...but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God. (2 Tim 1:7-8) 

Part of every Catholic’s share in the hardship for the Gospel is that we must repent of our actions that are offensive to God and destructive to our brothers and sisters. And we must oppose the threats to innocent life that are most real and most urgent. Make no mistake! There is no single issue that threatens innocent human life more directly, consistently and urgently than the deliberate killing of baby boys and baby girls in their mother’s womb. No issue! In the time since this homily started, at least 30 children have been deliberately executed in the womb in the United States—and that’s just the ones that are reported. 

Let me sum up with some very challenging words: “We have a serious obligation to protect human life, and especially the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Whoever fails to do this, when otherwise able to do so, commits a serious sin of omission. They jeopardize their own spiritual well-being and they are a source of scandal for others. Should they be Catholics, they should not receive Holy Communion.” (Catholics in the Public Square, 4th Ed., p. 25)

Now, I hope you realize that it takes a lot of courage for a priest to communicate such challenging words as these—reminding his people that some actions are so gravely sinful that they render a Catholic unworthy to receive Holy Communion until there is complete repentance. A priest who is more concerned about the state of his people’s souls than they are themselves, deserves the esteem of his people for his willingness to speak such difficult truth to them with genuine love—to put the welfare of his people’s souls ahead of his own reputation, popularity or comfort. 

Such a priest should receive respect, admiration and support, rather than their resistance or criticism. So please pray for, thank and encourage the spiritual father that God has appointed for you and who loves you enough to tell you the truth. Because the priest who said these particular words...is your bishop...and mine."

A vote for Trump is a vote to save America

To those who have said they’d 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 big government at the expense of individual liberty? Because make no mistake: every non-vote for Trump puts Hillary one foot 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. But less understandable is Christians unwilling to forgive Trump for his un-Christian-like comments, but willing to ignore the greater sin of Hillary Clinton’s blatant anti-Christian views and corruption that endanger us all.

A non-vote for Trump would make president a woman who has repeatedly stated her profound aversion to gun rights. It would grant the honor of the presidency to a woman who put our national security and citizens at risk through her use of a private server for classified information, who lied about it, and then destroyed 33,000 emails after being subpoenaed for them. It would empower Hillary, who is under federal investigation, who has been fired in the past for unethical behavior, and who has publicly declared her “dream” for open borders, despite the criminals, disease, Columbian drug cartel and other evils that such a dream would invite.

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 around the world. Abandoning Trump would give power to the woman who, in return for favors, accepted millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation from countries who permit “honor killings” of women and outright murder of homosexuals, two groups she claims to defend. Saying no to Trump says yes to the woman awash in constant scandal, lies and corruption, who refused to send help to Americans under attack in Benghazi, who mislead family members about what caused their murders, and who, when questioned about it, testily hissed, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Scrapping Trump would make Hillary president, who promises higher taxes, more job-killing regulations, billions of dollars for bogus “climate change” programs despite our staggering debt, expanded Obamacare, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the importation of thousands of unvetted refugees from countries like Syria.

But most confounding are those citing moral indignation as their reason for rejecting Trump, when Hillary crudely spurns the most vital moral issues of humanity itself.

Hillary is rabidly pro-abortion, including partial birth abortion up through the ninth month, and, of course, embraces the Democratic Party platform, which has adopted the most pro-abortion platform in its history, including promises to fund abortion nationwide and globally by overturning the Hyde Amendment, repeal state and federal restrictions on abortion, and to crackdown on pro-life sidewalk counselors.

Hillary has mentioned no intention to overturn laws that force nuns helping the elderly poor to violate their religious convictions by providing for mandated contraception and abortifacients. Hillary embraces tyrannical LGBT politics, same-sex "marriage", and fails to condemn 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 said in a 2015 speech that "religious views would not be grounds for objection" to reprehensible things like abortion. 

In Hillary's view, on what grounds would doctors be able to decline committing abortions because of their religious beliefs? This dovetails seamlessly with Hillary's frequent references to her support for our “freedom to worship”, which means nothing more than our right to go to church, but not to practice our faith outside the walls of that church. If that doesn’t give you chills, it should. 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 how Hillary could accomplish this was made clear in the second presidential debate when she declared she would nominate only Supreme Court justices who uphold her radical leftist ideology. Not once did she mention the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold it. In contrast, Trump’s potential nominees are all committed constitutionalists.

It’s imperative to see the bigger picture. Beyond just Supreme Court justices, the president we elect will select Cabinet members, staff and other high ranking officials to move us toward that candidate’s vision for America. Who do you think will make the better selections? Tuesday's vote is not for merely a presidential candidate. It is for the broader political platform of that candidate's party. We cannot afford to overlook that.

We are all obligated to be good stewards of God’s gifts, and one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed by God is the USA, which has been the greatest force for good and the greatest experiment of individual liberty and prosperity the world has ever known. So we need to decide: Do we want to be good stewards of our country and preserve America, or do we want to relinquish it because we cannot get past the boorish comments of a candidate?

Sitting out the election or leaving the presidential circle blank are not options. Now is not the time for self-righteousness, but for self-sacrifice. We have a country to save from the ruinous, malignant policies of Hillary Clinton. It’s that simple and it’s that serious. Though certainly not perfect, Donald Trump is indeed our best hope for preserving America, and we have a duty to play our part in making that happen.  

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. 

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. 

This is affordable healthcare...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? 

Some say the authors of ObamaCare purposely made it bad so that we would all become so desperate that we would gladly accept the single payer system that Hillary Clinton would want, should she become president. But that would be even worse. There is a reason why people from Canada come to the US regularly for their medical treatment needs. 

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).

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.

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?