A must see…

http://catholicvoteaction.org/index.php

Just watch the video.

(P.S. Yeah, it’s been ages since I’ve posted.  Been busy.)

 

Ruth Bader and the Supremes

Various blogs are all over this, but of course our friends at the MSM are not going to raise an eyebrow (they’re still looking for Michael Jackson’s casket I suppose).  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, discussing her surprise at an early-80’s Supreme Court decision that held Medicaid was not required to fund abortions, made the following comment:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Funny.  You would think someone of Jewish descent — who has spoken about antisemitism when she was growing up “in the shadow of World War II” — would be a little more careful when talking about wanting to wipe out populations that a government or society “do[es]n’t want to have too many of.”

 

If I-ran the Country

Hearing bits and pieces about what all is going on in Iran right now with the presidential ballot problems, and various journalists and pundits discussing what the U.S. response is, should be, or should have been, I thought I’d let my imagination run wild and determine what kind of response some recent Presidents (and wannabe presidents) would have.

Reagan:  If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for Iran and for the Middle East, then, Mr. Supreme Leader, recount those votes!

Bush (41):  Read my lips: no new political or military actions.

Clinton:  Now I want you to listen to me.  I’m not going to say this again: I did NOT have political relations with that country, Iran.  I never told anybody to protest, not a single time.  Never.  These allegations are false.

Bush (43):  What?  Trouble in Iran?  Nuke them.  I don’t care what it takes.  Get every gun, every plane, every piece of artillery and get them over that country. America is threatened by these yahoos, and we’re gonna protect ourselves by wiping out everyone else.  Just let me  at ‘em, they’re going to regret messin’ with George Dubya.

Obama:  Well, we’re going to have to have a dialogue here.  And mark my words, I’ll be adding to the agenda this whole election counting issue.  I definitely think we need to chat about this.  And after some dialogue, we can talk a little more and see if it gets anywhere.  And if that doesn’t work, we’ll send over a few billion dollars in stimulus money in an attempt to continue our efforts at dialogue.

A few others:

Al Gore:  At first I wasn’t going to comment because I’m not sure I can link this issue in Iran to global warming.  And after reading all about this on the Internet (which I helped invent), I really can’t make any statements.  I mean, I have no experience whatsoever of losing an election and then raising a giant stink by alleging voter fraud and miscounting and conspiracies.

John Kerry:  I don’t have much to comment on.  But I served in Vietnam.

 

Reality Imitates Parody?

I wrote the post below several days ago but saved it till now to post.  Meanwhile, on that very topic of governmental interference into private family matters comes this story about a judge who ordered the parents of a 13 year old with cancer to have the child undergo chemo against their initial objections.

I freely admit that I don’t know much about this matter, and I feel bad for the judge who has to make such a decision and for the parents for having to deal with such a heavy issue.  To say nothing of the 13 year old.  Please God, may I or anyone I know ever have to be in such a situation.

But, here’s a perfect example the government intervening in a private family matter.  Which, according to Mr. Obama’s interpretation of Roe v. Wade, is a violation of a fundamental American principle.

Funny how I come up with a bunch of crazy scenarios for my post, and meanwhile, a real-life issue materializes at the same time.

 

This is the guy Notre Dame just gave an honorary law degree to.

I stumbled upon this quote earlier this week.  Shortly after taking office, the chosen one made the following comment on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade.  He said that Roe  “stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

At face value, it would appear that there is a fundamental principle to avoid government interference in family matters.  So let’s think of the following hypotheticals:

• Why is education of children compulsory?  How I choose to educate or not educate my children is a private family matter. Why does the government get to interfere by setting curriculum standards and require certain testing to make sure I’m meeting their standards?
• How I choose to discipline my children is also a private family matter.  How dare someone call child protective services simply because I think the way to raise them is to lock them in dark cages without food or water for days when they misbehave!  Whether I choose to whip my kids severely for backtalking is a private family matter.
• My spouse was killed by a hit and run drunk driver and I’m a single parent of 4 kids.  I was making a fine living until I got laid off from my job and haven’t been able to find a new one.  We were getting by on savings just fine for a while, but now it’s getting a little tough to pay the bills and get food on the table, and the kids have outgrown their shoes.  This is a private family matter, so I suppose the government shouldn’t interfere and provide things like unemployment compensation, food stamps, or Medicaid.  Survival of the fittest!
• I have a wife and a couple kids.  I’m not too fond of the lady anymore so I’ve been spending most of my evenings getting hammered at various bars, and I’ve been having affairs with 2 other women.  Now the old lady wants a divorce and is suing for custody of the kids.  Why does the judge get to decide where the kids go? This is a private matter; the government should keep out.
• I know that most people have better chances of survival if they wear a seatbelt, but I find it uncomfortable.  I also think that I can hold my baby better in my lap than if he was in a carseat, and it’s more comfortable that way for me and baby.  Therefore we have made a private family decision to never buckle up.  The police have no business issuing us citations.

Okay, the above are somewhat preposterous, but you could make a case for each of the above based on Obama’s statement. 

Mr. President, if you truly believe what you wrote, then watch out.  Because all kinds of government regulations that you favor would quickly become obsolete.  No more child protective services to get abused kids out of homes.  No more government run/funded battered women shelters.  No more social welfare programs. No more family courts. No more oversight of private and home-schools.

In other words, by claiming this stupid idea, you’re going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  That’s not what you want.  You just want to throw the baby out with the medical waste. 

And yet somehow, this guy is found deserving of an honorary law degree by a[n ostensibly] Catholic university.

 

Swine Flu II

Heard a great one at work today that I’m sure a certain friend would appreciate.

Swine flu.  Is that the past tense of ‘When Pigs Fly”?

I’ll wait for you to stop groaning before I go on.  Ready?  Good.

Here’s the kicker though.  I’m wondering if it’s actually happened.  Pigs may actually have flown.  Witness:

• America has elected a Black President.
• Bishops are actually taking a certain “Catholic” University to task for honoring a horribly pro-abortion president with an honorary degree.
• The U.S. government, which fought Socialism for the better part of the 20th centry, now owns the better part of several financial institutions and major corporations.
• Arlen Specter has finally stopped pretending to be a Republican.

I don’t know, it just seems like 5 years ago, if you would have asked any American if any of the above — or any of a number of other current events – would ever happen, the response would be “when pigs fly.”

Swine flu.  And here we are.  Wonder what’ll happen when  Hell freezes.

 

Mr. Clinton

Making its way through the blogosphere is the news about Former President Bill Clinton not understanding the concept of fertilization, and apparently clueless that an embryo has already been fertilized.  If you’re reading this, you’ve probably already seen the story and the YouTube video and know that he repeatedly says stuff about how the embryos for stem cell research are not yet fertilized and will never become fertilized, and there’s no “conceivable scenario [ba-dum-ching] … that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies.”

I’m not surprised.

This is a man who gets hung up on the meaning of the word “is.”  And we expect him to understand that difference between an egg and an embryo?

 

Memo to the President

Dear President Obama,

As the economy continues to sour, and as the Federal government continues to spend copious amounts of money, I’m sure you’ve been counseled that it’s time to rein in the spending on some things if the U.S.A. has any chance of ever being fiscally solvent.

I wanted to talk about your overturning of the ban on federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  Let us agree to disagree on the morality of such research.  I am convinced that ESCR is morally wrong; you are not.  So let us not review this from a moral perspective.  Let’s think practically.  Despite being ballyhooed as the panacea to everything from Alzheimer’s to  Yellow Fever, no research has come close to solving any of our health problems using embryonic stem cells.

So, let’s be frank.  It ain’t working.  Now, when every penny counts for a lot of us, why should we spend money on it?  Why not withold federal funding from this, so that more money can go into economic reviatlization?  As I mentioned, eventually something’s going to have to get cut to start paying the bills.  Why not start with ESCR?  If someone out there can demonstrate that it actually has worked, then maybe reconsider (at which point I’ll try the moral argument again).

But for now, why waste money on this?  Why now?

Yours sincerely,

Me

 

Quote

If you can’t think of something nice to say about someone, then you must be talking about Hillary Clinton.  — Jeff Foxworthy, Blue Comedy Comedy Tour Rides Again.

 

Validity of Innauguration

So apparently there was some flubbing Tuesday of the oath of office.  Both sides of the political divide are trying to blame the other as to whether the Chief Justice of the United States got distracted, or whether Barack Hussein Obama got distracted and messed up the Chief Justice.  Regardless of who gets the blame, the flub raises an interesting question:  was the swearing-in valid?  And since I’m am a big nerd, I immediately began to think in terms of sacramental theology for this.  After all, his taking the oath of office is like taking a marriage vow, and he’s being admitted into a certain office a la Holy Orders, so it was worth the musing.

As well all [should] know, a sacrament requires three things to be validly administered: matter, form, and intention.  So for the “sacrament” of Innauguration, I would propose the following (understanding that I am neither a civil nor canon lawyer; this is all for entertainment only):

Intention:  clearly, Barack Hussein Obama has every intention of becoming president.  I would suppose that the minister of this “sacrament” would be the man taking the oath of office, just as the minister(s) of the marital covenant are the spouses contracting matrimony.  The Chief Justice serves only as a witness that the oath was taken.  The Chief Justice doesn’t confer upon the candidate the office; it is assumed by the swearing of the oath.  (Incidentally, with many public offices, while there are often elaborate swearings-in involving judges, that’s often done for show.  The oath can be taken before anyone authorized to administer an oath, e.g. a notary public.)  So, as long as BHO intended to assume the office of presidency, we’re covered here.

Matter:  The constitution sets out certain rules for who can be the president.  One taking the office must be a certain age, a natural-born citizen, and have lived in the country for some set time prior to being eligible for office.  One must also have secured the vote of the Electoral College to validly assume office.  I can go up to my mom, a notary public, and take the oath of office but that no more makes me the President than my saying the vows of matrimony to my lawn mower makes me married.  There is some question still out there as to whether BHO is a natural-born citizen or not.  But, he did win the electoral college and has apparently satisfied the other requirements.  This one is still a gray area.

Form:  The Constitution itself spells out the oath of office for the President.  So for validity, those words would need to be followed.  But as with most “sacraments” there must be some question of what are the essential words, and which words are required for liceity, but not necessarily validity.  For instance, in the Eucharist, the essential words are ”This is My Body” and “This is the Cup of My Blood;” for Reconciliation it’s “I absolve you from your sins.”  What of the oath is essential?  Were the essential words said, even if the rest were ad-libbed?  I’m no scholar of law, so I don’t know.  Bottom line here is that there is certainly a justifiable doubt as to whether the oath was valid in the form used.

So, where do we go?  Maybe we do like Catholics do for questionable Baptisms and have a conditional innauguration.  “I Barack Hussein Obama, if I have not already done so, do hereby swear that I will….” Do we presume validity until the Supreme Court or some other tribunal issues a declaration of nullity?

Interesting stuff.  See what fun you can have when you mix church and state?

***Update*** Heard on the news this morning.  Apparently, the Chief Justice went to the White House On Wednesday and re-administerd the oaths of office to both the President and the Vice-President.  Someone said this is usually done anyway; another speculated that it was because the words of the oath were flubbed.  Either way, this takes care of the question of form in the exercise above.

So, it seems that BHO is the President.  Let the wailing and grinding of teeth begin.

Then again, there is still the matter of matter, and the possibility that he was not a natural-born citizen.

Post Script:  “No Person except a natural born Citizen….”  Does that mean if you were C-sectioned you are ineligible for office?