Grace

Angel Crucificada

Faithful Citizenship by Kent C. Bois

Over the past couple of years I have experienced growing frustration with the lack of Catholic influence in the political arena. I am told our vote has a tremendous effect on the outcome of presidential elections. If this is the case then why is abortion on demand still legal, why can’t we have vouchers or tax credits to home school or to use at schools outside the public system? Why are Christian values of life and family, peace and common decency attacked so often in public? It’s getting to the point where it is illegal to express our faith based, moral convictions publicly. We are not even supposed to pray publicly in Jesus’ name any more. Most importantly where are the politicians who will lead the way in supporting what we hold dear? Why must we vote for the lesser of two evils?

One cause of the breach between Catholic aspirations and what actually transpires is the failure of our Church here in America to provide clear and strong leadership, to teach the faith and exhort us to exercise it as Catholic citizens. Have you ever heard a homily encouraging you to vote for politicians who support moral positions? That it is your duty? The ‘Lay Faithful’s’ duty is to take our faith into our communities, work places and even into politics. That’s right I said politics. Our religion is not a private matter! Atheists, gay marriage proponents and abortion advocates do not have the moral high ground. We have just as much right to advocate for what we believe in as they do. We have just as much right to speak out and support legislation which reflects our deepest beliefs and values as they do. Yet we allow them to silence us, our Church, and many of our Cardinals, Bishops and Priests as well. How do they do that? There are probably many ways but let me reflect on one.

There is an attitude or an idea that I think most of us are familiar with: the so-called separation of Church and State. I hear it used all the time and I’m sick of it. The erroneous understanding of our Constitution and the shameless perpetuation of this lie have convinced many if not most Americans that religion is supposed to be a private matter. That religious convictions and beliefs are not supposed to inform us as we legislate the laws of our country. NONSENSE! This understanding of the Constitution is contrary to historical usage and just plain stupid.

First the so called separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. To the contrary, it is based on a quote of Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut. He wrote that there was a, "wall of separation between the church and the state." Why did he say this? He told them this because they were afraid. Of what, you ask? They were afraid that the government would infringe on their freedom to worship. The separation or wall that Jefferson wrote about was to let them know that the Constitution had been written to protect Religion from the State. Let me say that again because it sounds so good: to protect Religion from the State.

See http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm for more.
But let me add what the Constitution does say.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.”

Is this amazing? Our Constitution restricts government! Next time you here separation of church and state use the above quote.

Now lets get down to business. Mr. Joe Healy, an engineer, did some amazing homework using the document, Faithful Citizenship, on his blog defend life. He took the criteria listed in Faithful Citizenship, assigned points to "intrinsically evil" positions and other important issues. Higher points were given for intrinsically evil issues and lesser points for other issues. He then looked at the voting records or stated positions of all the presidential candidates, including Allan Keyes, and added up the points to see which candidates come closest to reflecting a truly Catholic position on these very important issues. Remember our faith is supposed to inform not just what we believe but how we act. So what were the results?
1. Ron Paul (R): 99 points
2. Alan Keyes (R): 70 (not on the ballot in all states)
3. Mike Huckabee (R): 69
4. Duncan Hunter (R): 50
5. Tom Tancredo (R): 48
6. John McCain (R): 36
7. Chris Dodd (D): 25
8. Dennis Kucinich (D): 22
9. Mitt Romney (R): 10
10. Joe Biden (D): 5
11. Fred Thompson (R): 4
12. Hillary Clinton (D): (-11)
13. John Edwards (D): (-13)
14. Bill Richardson (D): (-15)
15. Barack Obama (D): (-15)
16. Rudy Giuliani (R): (-28)
17.
The following quote from Mr. Healy will help to qualify these results.
“My analysis is not perfect, but I think it gives a good relative scale of all of the candidates against important Catholic social issues.”
I’m guessing these results are a surprise to many. What I am hoping is that you will take this very seriously. Fr. Frank Pavone praised the work of the Bishops in giving us Faithful Citizenship. Although it may not be as clear and strong in pointing the way as some might like. Mr. Healy’s work has connected the dots in an explicit and powerful way.

Finally do not be afraid to be 100% Catholic in the public arena. We aren’t second class citizens. We all know there are serious problems in our country, morally and economically. We also know that our current politicians are doing nothing to effect real change. Why do we keep voting the same politicians back into office? Don’t you think that bringing our faith back into public life will have an overwhelmingly positive effect on our country? I do. Don’t be embarrassed by your faith. Vote and vote for the candidate that your conscience informed by your faith will best lead this country. Hint they’re not the front runners. Primaries are coming up soon make your vote count. In closing I would like to share a prayer by the Protestant minister Derek Prince, “Lord give us leaders such that it will be for Your glory to give us victory through them.”

God Bless America

Letter to WSJ reporter, Amy Schatz

Ms. Schatz,

I just read David Chesley's response to your article about him and I must say that although I am not surprised, I certainly am disappointed. I am disappointed in you as a journalist as I am disappointed daily by the majority of mainstream journalism in the United States. I would love to see more journalists who have the integrity to ignore instructions from the media's ownership and write honestly about Dr. Ron Paul. I am sorry that you aren't willing to risk your job to tell the truth.
I want you to know that I am not a kook, as Mona Charen would like to paint me.
I am a well-educated middle class American. I am an ex-expat who has lived 25 years in South America, mostly in Chile. I read deeply: Romans from Livy and Suetonius to Procopius and Seneca, I read Plutarch, Thucydides, Machiavelli, the Romantic philosophers, our Founding Fathers and the darker ideas of Kafka, Nietzsche, Orwell and Huxley. If I am a Kook, then it is crazy to be educated. I have a bachelor's degree in Political Science and an associate’s degree in Culinary Arts. I paint and I try to write. Above all else I am a faithful Catholic who is dedicated to advancing the kingdom of God here on earth. With what I have learned, I have come to the conclusion that there is no excuse for dishonesty and that there is almost no justification for killing.
I find the current crop of candidates as blatant a group of dissemblers as has ever aspired to the Presidency of our once noble nation. They are all motivated by naked ambition. Besides Dr. Paul and perhaps Mr. Kucinich, there is not one of them whose positions are anything more than the results of test groups and polling numbers. They never truly answer a question; they always talk in circles so as to be free to change their position later without "flipflopping". They all have a varied selection of speeches that they can deliver depending on the audience that they plan to lie to. There is nothing genuine left in most of them; they have become vacuous bags of greed and ambition. So they are not "called" to the Presidency in order to right wrongs or to sacrifice four years of their lives to advance a coherent vision of change. In fact they all have parts in the same choir. They just sing different parts in the same song. The only reason that they humiliate themselves in front of the press and groups of farmers at diners in Des Moines and Concord is because they want the power of the Presidency with an urge that is almost sexual in its intensity.
What hurts me most is that the candidates are so ready to use the power of the Presidency to kill. It is obvious when one listens to Hillary, Rudy and Romney, but it is there with Edwards, Biden, McCain and Thompson as well. They reserve the right to maintain soldiers abroad, to continue abortion in America, to advance unnecessary fetal stem cell research. They will not fight to outlaw the death penalty; they are wish washy even about preemptive use of nuclear weapons! They are against torture "except in cases of national emergency..." Kill, kill, kill! What do we harvest in the fields of death? We harvest more death and generational hatred.
We need a leader with humility and integrity who can say, wait a moment, if we are to equivocate, let it be on the side of caution because all human life is dear.
To this educated kook, there is no choice other than Ron Paul in this election.

If it were up to journalists such as you, Amy, no one in this country would know anything about Dr. Paul. If it were up to your boss, Mr. Murdoch, Ron Paul would be ridiculed into oblivion. But Mr. Murdoch and his paid propagandists do not control all public discussion any longer. There is a forum where real ideas can be discussed.
I thank God for the Internet, and I warn you Amy, that as more people have their eyes opened to more angles of reality, that they will see you and reporters like you and Mona Charen as paid stooges not to be trusted, but rather to be pitied for their servitude.


Sincerely,




Christopher Ferrell

Great Video From Ron Paul

Why We Have The Right To Bear Arms

WHY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS


The discussion about our right to own firearms completely misses the point. The writers of the Constitution were not worried about our ability to hunt, nor were they concerned about assuring that we could ward off burglars. The sole reason that firearms were important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights was to guarantee our ability to protect ourselves from OUR government.

If we are armed in order to keep the government in check, to keep it from taking away our rights, then our weapons have to be threatening to the government. In 1791 the citizens of this country were armed almost as well as the army was. The government had many reasons to protect the rights of the citizenry: one of those reasons being the last resort of revolution. The arms of the citizens kept the government honest.

That idea has been purposely buried so as to confuse the issue. We hear concerned police and leftist politicians concede that hunting guns make sense; that we should have the right to own a shotgun, but that assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns are too dangerous for citizens to own. We hear pundits say that many arms are too dangerous and too threatening. The media never mentions that our arms must be as dangerous and threatening as those in the hands of Homeland Security and the local Sheriff’s Department in order for the Second Amendment to be meaningful.

But now there are many government entities working to limit the firearms that we can own, and at the same time the government is militarizing our police departments. Your local sheriffs department is now armed with M16s, grenade launchers, high-powered sniper rifles, body army and grenades. What is that firepower for? It is a bit excessive for crime fighting. It is equipment that is designed to control large mobs with deadly force. The expense involved in this militarization is huge; the total cost of this militarization it is in the billions. Why is the government arming to confront large groups of people here in the United States?

The NRA has not been a very good representative of gun owners because they do not share the philosophy of mistrust in our government. They have become a big Washington lobby that is part of the system, not a check on the system. So citizens need to write their Congressmen and make noise in the press and on the Internet. We need arms that allow us to be a legitimate threat to the government. Do not let them take away our assault rifles. At the same time we need to demand that the police departments be de-militarized. We are not well served by police that can control us all.

We are being told that it is patriotic to keep step with the government. That is a LIE! It is patriotic to make the government fear US, not for us to fear the government.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

~George Washington

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

~George Washington


This is an update to the article I wrote last year.
I ran across an article making the case that in every case of genocide in the last 100 years, the government took away the people's right to won guns first. Click on the window below to see the statistics, or click here to read the article.



Second Update


I wrote this article about a year ago. I made an addition below, by adding the chart that ties acts of genocide to the control and confiscation of guns.
Now I have to add another set of comments because our second amendment rights are under attack like never before in our history by a bill that was introduced to Congress on January 6th 2009, titled HR-45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee on the day that it was introduced and on the 9th of February it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Normally a bill this bad would have died quietly in the Judiciary Committee, but this Orwellian nightmare has taken a step closer to being voted on. This may happen and you need to write your Congressmen and stop this horrible legislation.


And here are the details of this bill that will effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment:

1.- If you own guns you will need a Federal gun owners ID, which will include retina scans, fingerprints
2.- Each gun that you own must be registered.
3.- You may only sell a gun to a registered gun collector or gun dealer and each transaction has to pay a $25 fee. You may not sell a gun directly to a friend. Guns cannot be passed from one generation to another without going through a gun dealer.
4.- If you have a gun lost or stolen you must report it within (I don't remember - a week I think)
5.- Failure to report a lost or stolen gun will result in fines and up to 2 years in the pen.
6.- If children under 18 years old reside in your home your guns must be disassembled and kept under lock and key.
7.- Federal inspectors can request to see your guns and your paperwork at any time. If they find that your guns are not locked up, then you will be.

How's that sound?

If you don't have any unregistered guns, get some.
Buy lots of ammo. Lots of ammo. Other people may need it too.
Don't keep all your guns and ammo in the same place.

Third Update:
Fortunately the horrible HR45 was not passed. Good news doesn't happen very often in statist America, we should be happy for every victory.


Following is a terrific video shot during a Senate hearing to ban "assault weapons". Pay extra attention to the last minute. The Senators don't get it, but Dr. Suzanna Hupp certainly does.

Second Generation Latinos and You

A curious thing happens to low income Hispanic immigrants in the United States. The first generation, those that come across the American border either with proper documentation or without, embody the American dream in all its hope and ambition. By and large, they are humble, law abiding, respectful people. Their crime rates per capita are lower than the national average. They come here to work, save money and to offer a better life to their children than they had as poor campesinos south of the border. But their children, the second generation, and succeeding generations seem to lose the work ethic, they lose respect for America and fall into cultural dysfunction. Why does this happen? Is American society doing something that impedes Hispanic immigrants from passing their positive values and habits on to their children?

Most first generation Hispanic immigrants come from low-income families with little formal education and they work considerably longer hours than native-born Americans do. They save much more money as a percentage of their income than their Americans counterparts do. Most are religious and a greater percentage attends regular religious services than low income Americans do. Given the opportunity, more low-income first generation Hispanics buy and own their own homes than their low-income American counterparts. Although it is difficult to find valid statistics about this group of people because many of them are undocumented and do not show up in most surveys, it appears that they are much less likely to be involved in illegal activity than Americans in the same income group.

The curious thing that happens to the Hispanic population is that a large percentage of the second generation abandons the values of its progenitors. There are factors that determine the extent of this dichotomy, for instance family stability, the amount of time that parents spend with their children and the involvement of the parents, especially fathers, in the schooling of their children. The more attention that children receive from the parents the less likely that they will end up in trouble. But an inordinate percentage of young Latinos take the wrong road, have trouble with the law and don’t finish school or get good jobs. They adopt a culture of rebellion that frightens the Anglos around them. Hip Hop clothes and attitudes designed to intimidate are common. Why does this change happen from one generation to the next?

I submit that the cold, hateful welcome that these people receive is one of the major reasons for the rebellion of their children. Hispanic families are very tight. Pride is important to them and in their cultures respect and courtesy are observed with more formality than they are here. Americans are actually quite rude, our modern culture seems to look down on courtesy, and perhaps it is old fashioned. So we think nothing about being rude and direct with a Hispanic immigrant who is with his children. This scorn, which may be nothing more than a disapproving glance at the grocery store, is recorded by the kids watching the public humiliation of their Mom and Dad. It happens all the time and often it is quite striking. It is especially telling when the kids see how badly treated their parents are by their employers. The reaction to humiliation is powerful and the Latino kids who witness their parents’ belittlement turn away from mainstream Anglo culture and find their heroes in the rebels.

It also happens in schools. The Anglo kids who learn racism at home with Mom and Dad shun the Latino kids. The Latinos are often ridiculed and then in turn they shun the Anglo kids and tend to stick with their Hispanic friends. These groups easily turn into gangs and fight each other. The heroes to the young Latinos then are fighters, gangstas who make money without having to humiliate themselves before the scornful white folks.

If we want to do something to stop this syndrome, try being nice to people, especially poor Latinos. If you can’t be nice, at least be polite and respectful. Their kids are watching.

Washington’s Political Nobility

Our system of government was conceived as a Republic governed by citizens as representatives of their peers. The citizen-politician embodied this ideal. Many great Americans went to Washington as Representatives or as Senators for one term or maybe two, but never with the idea of making a career out of politics. It was seen rather as a responsibility to serve the nation.

Things have changed over the years. We have arrived at the point where service in the House of Representatives and the Senate is seen as one of the most lucrative careers that a man or woman can aspire to. It is seen as the most desirable long-term position; one that if done well, will employ a person in luxury until their very comfortable retirement. The trouble is that in order to get the true monetary advantages and power that the positions in the Senate and the House can offer a successful candidate from Dogstown, that new Representative must be sharp enough to look for the benefits that are not included in the job description.

Washington revolves around the 535 men and women who serve in the House and the Senate. The entire metropolitan area is involved directly or indirectly with the Federal government. So the people that can move things along, who can propose or change legislation, that can add earmarks to benefit the farm lobby or the big manufacturer back home in Howardsville, have incredible clout in Washington. The lobbyists and restaurant maitre d’s and pages and subsecretaries of the myriad agencies and departments all fall over themselves sucking up to the mighty 535. Given such constant attention, some (or maybe most) of our representatives forget where they came from and become Washington’s “political nobility”.

I have decided to use the term "political nobility" to describe that class of Washington politician who serves and is served by professional political apparatchiks: either lobbyists, bureaucrats or pundits that are also divorced from the world outside of the beltway. Our Political nobility, like the grandchildren of the Dukes and Baronesses that Louis XIV had relocated permanently to Versailles, and who under Louis XVI played palace politics while Paris burned, is much more preoccupied with each one’s political position and prestige in Washington than they are concerned about the effects of their policies on the rest of the nation and the rest of the world. Their vision is only inward, policies that should be made into law are important only insofar as they generate more power or attention in Washington.

The opinions of the rest of America are seen to be quaint and easy to manipulate when the Noble has good relations with the mainstream media. After all the recognized members of the mainstream media are also included in Washington's nobility, although at a lower and dependent level. Together with the real royalty, the leaders of corporate America, the political nobility and the Dukes and Barons of the media present an alternative reality to America. The reality presented to Americans has little or nothing to do with what really goes on in the Capitol.

What really goes on is a constant competition for favour and influence. What matters is bulding the relationships that allows for greater power among the other nobles. Therefore the political nobility is afraid of advancing radical ideas that might jeopardize an important power group because they avoid creating dangerous enemies. The political nobility is a closed club where confrontation is for show and real conflict disappears with behind closed-door arrangements. The maverick who does stand up for principles is shunned by the nobles and is not awarded with commitee chairs and other positions of power.

Some of the men and women elected to represent us are completely compromised by this system, others are amazingly resistant to the system’s temptations, and of course the majority of our representatives find themselves somewhere in between the virtue of true service and the crime of corruption. Examples abound, but I would suggest that Tom DeLay, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Shumer are some of the worst examples of the political nobility. In contrast, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are examples of citizen-politicians.

The term “political nobility” is therefore useful to describe this group that lies and postures and drives us to ruin, with no concern about anything more transcendental than how it will spin in Washington. Thanks to the political nobility’s preoccupation with personal privilege and power we have two pointless wars, a crashing dollar and a world that sees us as killers and torturers.

Ron Paul Honors Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS, BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 6th, 2005


Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.

Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.

In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.