OBAMARXISM

The louder America speaks, the less this administration seems to listen.

The tribe has spoken clearly on health care: 73 percent want this bill scrapped; 52 percent are against the reforms altogether. President Obama came out Wednesday and said he's just going forward and using reconciliation. But America opposes use of reconciliation by a 52 to 39 percent margin.

And even he seemed to oppose the "50-plus-one" option in 2007:

THEN-SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: You've got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50-plus-one, then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks, but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy.

 Are there really 51 Democrats willing to overthrow democracy of this country?


More importantly, are there 51 narcissists willing to give up their seat in November in order for Obama to overthrow democracy?


Earlier this week, I got an email from Anne Fox of MCFL saying the current version of the bill is worse than ever.   

I'll repeat what I've been saying all along:  I think Our Lord has been demonstrating for quite some time that voting the lesser of two evils is partnering with evil any way you slice it and the fruit will continue to it's trajectory of destruction.

I defer to the magnificent Fr. Rutler.

FROM THE PASTOR
February 28, 2010
by Fr. George W. Rutler

In the Transfiguration, Christ showed that everything must center on Him to be of right service to humanity. Moses, representing the law and social order, defers to Him, as does Elijah, representing the intellect and spiritual order. The Church recounts this in Lent, because Jesus revealed His glory in preparation for the Crucifixion.

     Christ’s glory sheds light on His three temptations in the wilderness. Satan tested Him to see if He would succumb to the deceits of secularism (turning stones to bread, as though matter were the only thing that really matters) and power (control of governments in exchange for cooperating with evil) and fantasy (attaining celebrity by flouting the laws of nature).

     The Catholic Church is, as Pope John Paul II said, “expert in humanity.” Satan’s chief enemy is the Church, for this is Christ alive in the world. From hard experience the Church knows the temptations of secularism (reducing Christianity to philanthropic humanism), clericalism (bartering supernatural grace for social power) and subjectivism (living in a parallel universe contemptuous of moral reality).

     To succumb to these temptations is to die, both personally and institutionally. The latest figures show that those denominations that surrendered to “the spirit of the age” are vanishing. The liberal Protestant denominations are evaporating. One of their leaders has said that their numbers are dropping because their members are too well educated to have children. It is hardly intelligent to design one’s own demise. Our social fabric will have to adjust to the disappearance of these groups, which for a long while defined the public face of society. At the same time, the Catholic Church continues to grow, and would have done so even more had not many Catholics themselves yielded to the threefold temptations. In the most recently recorded year, 2007 to 2008, the number of Catholics worldwide increased by 19 million people. Priests increased from 405,178 to 409,166. Seminarians increased from 115,919 to 117,024. As in the religious orders, the growth is invariably in those where the Faith is kept.

     In the early nineteenth century, Tocqueville predicted that, one day, the only options in the United States would be Catholicism and unbelief. In the early twentieth century, Chesterton said that “every man would end up either in utter pessimistic skepticism or as a member of the Catholic creed.” In a famous vision, St. John Bosco saw little boats tying up with the Barque of Peter. This September, the Successor of Peter will speak in Westminster Hall on the very spot where St. Thomas More was sentenced to death (and eternal glory) for defending the papacy. This is not a time for self-satisfaction. It is a summons to Lenten penance for our own subtle dalliances with temptations against the Faith, in the hope that we may respond more faithfully to the work of saving souls.

---

St. Benedict's Center on the Lesser of Two Evils

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil

Pro-Lifers are celebrating a victory after the special election held January 19th to fill the seat in the US Senate left vacant by the death of Edward M. Kennedy. The legacy of the “Catholic” pro-abortion senator is being snuffed out; the Democrat heir-apparent has been overwhelmingly cast aside. This is a major upset in Massachusetts politics which will affect the whole country.
One should remember, however, that the victory here is a negative one. For the moment there is no imminent threat to increase the killing of the unborn. The status quo has been maintained. It’s business as usual in the abortion industry. And just as many babies will be killed today as yesterday.
During the campaign, however, there was a lot of uneasiness in pro-life circles as the question was raised whether it would be moral to vote for Scott Brown, a pro-choice candidate, in view of the fact that the favored Democrat, Martha Coakley is fanatically pro-abortion.

The reply was often, “Wouldn’t it be sinful not to vote in an election where so much is at stake? How many more abortions will occur if the Obama health care bill passes? Brown could prevent it. Besides, you can always vote for the lesser of two evils.”

Some argued, “A no-vote is a vote for Coakley.”

Was there such a difference between the candidates to warrant casting a vote for the lesser of two evils? Suffice it to say that the Massachusetts voters who kept Senator Kennedy—with all his crimes—in office for 47 years refused to support the likes of Martha Coakley.

Undoubtedly this particular moral dilemma has been raised in the past, splitting pro-lifers into two camps: that of the “compromisers” and that of the “hard-liners.” What made the debate so intense this time was the obvious enormity in the difference of the the two candidates which made the hard-liners hard pressed to switch camps.

One long-time champion of life stated, “I have never voted for the lesser of two evils but if ever there were the right time to do it, this is it.”

Morality of the Case

The standard text of the licitness of choosing the lesser of two evils is derived from the encyclical Evangelium Vitae of Pope John Paul II on the value and inviolability of human life, published on March 25, 1995. He wrote:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. … In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Before going too far in our conclusions here, we realize that the Pope is talking about supporting a law that would indeed be more restrictive than one already in place. A law is spelled out and definitive while a politician may campaign to limit abortion but then easily change his position once elected. There is a correlation, although not as strong.

Regarding the hope of changing politicians for the better, Father Roger Landry pointed out in a recent article: “Not only has there not been one success story over the past three decades of a ‘pro-choice’ Catholic politician’s becoming pro-life, but rather, many of them have just grown bolder.” Parenthetically, Scott Brown is not Catholic, so there’s hope.

The Catholic Bishops of the United Sates teach in their voter guide, Forming Conscience, “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

Importantly they add, “The moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts (i.e. abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception) has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”

A Word of Caution

One should never invoke the principle of the lesser of two evils casually and should be sufficiently informed and aware that there is a real difference between the candidates. Here are some further points to ponder:


• Your vote for a pro-choice candidate signals to the political parties that conservative Catholics will vote for pro-aborts if the stakes appear high. Party bosses will potentially exploit this by making the stakes appear high when they promote pro-aborts.

• Your vote for a pro-choice candidate signals to the public at large that conservative Catholics will vote for pro-aborts, and helps them justify their continued support for pro-aborts.

• Your vote for a pro-choice candidate gives example to your family and friends that it is acceptable to vote for pro-aborts in certain cases, yet may not give them sufficient guidance on how to apply this compromise come the next election.

• Your vote for pro-choice candidate could desensitize you and predispose you, in however small a degree, to vote for the next pro-abort.

• The continued recourse to voting for pro-aborts over the long term is a strong indicator that the process will continue indefinitely. Hence, in the long term, compromising could cost many more lives than not compromising.

Strategy:

1) Always Choose Life and Pro-Lifers 
 
For the slaughter of the innocent to ever come to an end in this country, Pro-Lifers must do more than quietly enter the voting booth and choose the lesser of two evils. This is negative. The movement needs militant advocates guided by principle and good strategy.
For years now, the strategy of the pro-life movement in general has been expediency and the choosing of the lesser of two evils. Acceptance of compromise candidates is the general rule.

In the scandalous voter guide published by EWTN and authored by Fr. Stephen Torraco, voters are told that if there are three candidates, two of which are pro-abortion in varying degrees and a third completely pro-life candidate, a Catholic voter may pass over the pro-life candidate and vote for the lesser of the two evils if the pro-lifer is unlikely to win. This position does not follow from the Pope’s encyclical cited above.

That situation came up when Pat Buchanan was running for President. Mass Citizens for Life—a largely Catholic organization formed to protect the rights of the unborn—chose not to rally behind Buchanan’s unabashedly pro-life banner because there was “no chance” of winning. Of the remaining candidates, they endorsed the lesser of two evils.

Anyone who joined in that campaign will remember how invigorating it was to rally behind Buchanan. Win or lose, truth and Catholic principles were being paraded nation wide, while even Bishops who never criticize candidates by name did not hesitate to distance themselves from Buchanan’s old fashioned “Triumphalism.”

When there is a candidate who is clearly pro-life always vote for him regardless or whether he’s going to win or lose. And when such a candidate comes along, he deserves more than a simple vote but your support also. Should a pro-life candidate be forced to say, “I can’t run on a completely pro-life ticket because pro-lifers won’t support me? I better compromise and become just a little less pro-abortion than my opponent to get the Catholic vote. After all, this is politics, not religion.”

2) Always Oppose Evil

Pro-Lifers can all agree always to oppose the evil of abortion. This is the first principle of the movement. It must include abortion on every score and in every case. We should always be ready to defend the life involved in the so called “hard cases.”

3) Always Oppose the Greater of Two Evils

Not choosing the lesser of two evils carries with it the idea that a no vote is a vote for the greater of two evils. However, positive action can be taken—with no thought of doing the wrong thing—by opposing the greater evil. If the lesser evil prevails it will be by default and not by your free choice. If there are two pro-choice candidates, it will be always good and morally praiseworthy to pick out the one who may do the most evil and

• Discourage people among relatives, neighbors, and co-workers from voting for that candidate. Each “conversion” in this area will help the salvation of a soul. And remember: a vote taken away from the worse candidate replaces equally your vote for the lesser. Your one vote can easily be outweighed by multiple votes intercepted.

• Let everyone know that issues such as tax cuts, health care, minimum wage and services to the poor cannot be put on the same level as Abortion, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Euthanasia, Homosexual “marriage” and Human Cloning. These latter are non-negotiable issues that cannot be morally supported.

Here are a few more wholesome and positive actions:

• Imitate the zeal of the candidates and scores of volunteers at phone banks calling to get the vote out. If pro-lifers went door to door as do campaign volunteers, we could make great strides for life. At least be ready to talk to anyone who will listen.

• How did Ted Kennedy keep getting re-elected despite his 100% pro-abortion record? No one was telling Catholic voters the evil associated with such a vote. They made no distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable issues. There was no warning from the pulpit or in the diocesan news papers.

• You can encourage the bishop of your diocese to refuse Holy Communion to pro-choice politicians.

• You can encourage your parish priest to speak against abortion.
As Saint Benedict’s motto was “Ora et Labora,” we should pray ever ardently for the overturning of Roe V. Wade and work ever zealously to stop abortion with every legitimate means available. If in Massachusetts and some other states as well, the death penalty for convicted murderers has been abolished, why shouldn’t, and why can’t, the death penalty be abolished for the innocent “unwanted” child?

Remember: The goal is always Complete Victory– not Compromise.

Rebelling against the lesser of two evils vote

There's a discussion going on at Mark Sheas discussion on the personal culpability and objective evils of voting for anybody in this election.

Okay: same with all moral decision-making, including politics. I think it is an objective evil to support a candidate who wishes to use his office to commit gravely immoral acts such as sign the Freedom of Choice Act or support stem cell research. I make no distinction between candidates who want to cannibalize babies who are big and candidates who want to cannibalize babies who are small. I think anybody voting for either candidate is committing an objective evil.

So, with this hypothesis if Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler were running against a John McCain or even Obama and were leading in the polls - responsible people who lobby to make sure Pol Pot doesn't win are committing an objective evil?

Not withstanding that fact that this allegation contradicts the the Pope's guidance, the idea that we should do nothing in the face of an Obama administration - is like standing by and doing nothing while a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of a car in our presence because he is a proabort.

Do check out the comments