And his voting record that supports his love for the culture of death.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html
"I remember the days when Obama was already a rising national star in the Democratic Party and in the Illinois state legislature. And what a disappointment to us he was. He voted "present" instead of "no" on five horrendous anti-women/anti-choice bills." --E-mail from Connecticut NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.
The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. During the runup to Super Tuesday, a chain e-mail circulated among many NOW members denouncing Obama's record on abortion issues while serving as a state senator in the Illinois legislature. Echoing attacks by the Clinton campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, the e-mails cited his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.
Some analysts credit the earlier attacks on Obama's abortion record with helping to shift the momentum in the New Hampshire primary in favor of Clinton. So what are we to make of these latest e-mails?
The Facts
Obama has had difficulty explaining some of his 129 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on issues such as promoting school discipline and prohibiting sex shops near places of worship. In the case of his votes on the anti-abortion legislation, however, he has had a solid alibi. The Illinois branch of the Planned Parenthood organization has given him a "100 percent" pro-choice voting rating and depicted the present votes as part of a previously agreed strategy to provide political cover for other legislators.
Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."
Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' votes on issues related to abortion:
1997 Votes
SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
2001 Votes
HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.
SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.
The president of the Chicago branch of NOW in 1997 was Lorna Brett Howard. A former Clinton supporter, Brett says that she switched last month to backing Obama because she was "enraged" by the attacks by the Clinton camp. She credited Obama with a "100 percent voting record" on "pro-choice" issues.
The current president of Illinois NOW, Bonnie Grabenhofer, issued a statement this week accusing Brett Howard of "misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills." She said that the Illinois branch of NOW did not support the strategy of voting present, at least as far as the 2001 votes were concerned, and added: "At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy."
A lobbyist for Illinois NOW, Susan Bramlet Lavin, told me that "we asked our legislators to vote no" on the 2001 bills and never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting present. "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes," said Bramlet Lavin. She said that Illinois NOW declined to endorse Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
President B. Hussein Obama's Culture Of Death Lives
This story is one of the sickest I have ever read.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/02/05/0205abortion.html
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
I May Not Be Catholic.....But I Like The Teachings!
Here is an article written in 1994. The Catholic Church is so right on many moral issues. It is easy to see why those who do not have eyes to see and ears to hear are so quick to attack the church, its true followers, and those who defend it. God bless the Catholic Church and those who are true, practicing members.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Birth ControlIn 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian TeachingFew realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
NatureContraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
ScriptureIs contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
Apostolic TraditionThe biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The MagisteriumThe Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Human ExperiencePope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Wishful ThinkingIgnoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Birth ControlIn 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian TeachingFew realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
NatureContraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
ScriptureIs contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
Apostolic TraditionThe biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The MagisteriumThe Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Human ExperiencePope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Wishful ThinkingIgnoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Dr. In The House
Thanks Dr. for the great insight!
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
Monday, January 26, 2009
My Stimulus Package For America
Between repubs and dems, all we hear is "stimulus check this, stimulus check that." So, I was talking with a buddy when I came up with a few thoughts. I will post a disclaimer; I have the right to change or adapt these ideas, since they are in their early development stage. WHAT EVER THE HECK THIS MEANS!
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)