Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

 

Vice President Mike Pence has a talent for bringing out the crazy, admittedly never far beneath the surface, on the left in this nation.  They are trying to make hay out of Pence’s statement in 2002 that he never dines alone with a non-related woman not his wife.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:

Who in the world would have a problem with this? Apparently a few hellbent on looking stupid.  This is Washington, and this is Pence, a man who tries to live by his faith and thus his reputation will be target number one for those who wish to destroy him. That’s the common sense in politics part.

On the common sense in life part, neither do I. I know of few if any married men who do go out to dinner with other women one on one. Business or otherwise.  Not a single man I’ve worked for, and not a single woman I’ve worked with for that matter, does that I’m aware of.   At least ones in good marriages. That’s just common freaking sense marriage 101. It’s not really a ‘Billy Graham rule.’  Graham made it famous for pastors back in the day when clergy held a certain star status, but he didn’t pioneer the advice.  It goes back long before Graham, and generally has been followed by most men and women I know who had happy marriages.

If people do go out together with others one on one, when they’re otherwise married, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t judge one way or another.  But to make this basic common sense advice, since forever, into some scandal? I thought it was an Onion piece or SNL skit when I first heard about it. I’ll count this as almost the most stupid thing I’ve heard in a year. An actual year of stupid, and this is near the top.  And reading what the “critics” were actually saying made it worse.

Kudos to Slate for the most ‘out the arse asinine stupid’ take on this non-story.    Because the only place I can learn how much a woman has to offer is alone at dinner, not in any other setting at all.

And the “Make Walter Sobchak seem like Einstein”award goes to Philip Sherburn for comparing this principle to Sharia Law in his tweet about Pence’s choice.

I mean, the dumb has taken over the extreme left on this day in March, 2017.  Mourn or apologize or rejoice as you see fit.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

  • The left are incredibly stupid and shallow, not to mention forgetful of their hero slut Bill Clinton. Cigar connoisseur wee Willie wanker.

    I do not wish for Trumps demise.
    That said, VP Pence would make an excellent replacement if ever our President was incapable of holding office.

  • I asked someone over there who was blaming Mike, “What if his wife asked it of him?”

    Their answer: “Then his wife is a suspicious fool.”

    That’s where we are now. Common sense and knowledge about human nature is now called foolish.

    They mock wisdom, and wonder how in the world they keep looking stupid.

  • When I first saw this, I thought “Oh, he’s kind of strict, like Mrs Jones at school.” And then I thought nothing more of it until today when I got an email regarding this so-called scandal.
    .
    If this is the worst the Left can throw, they are truly scrapping the bottom to find an issue, any issue, to stir up trouble. Total non issue.
    .
    My husband and I don’t follow this policy, but I must confess I don’t know the details of this policy either. Are we talking fancy restaurant (with suitable menu/prices), dim lighting, semi private booths/tables? Or the Wednesday lunch Pizza Bro’s day, when the usual posse (and the rest of the local financial district ) is almost always there, but only Peter and Helen make it, because Paul, Catherine, Luke, and Mary are trapped at work? Peter and Helen deciding to dine at Cafe Chez Vous is definitely sketchy, but sitting apart from each other at Pizza Bro’s seems odd. They are no longer following a predictable, established pattern.
    .
    I’ve had lunch with other men in public places (and my husband knows about it). And my husband has been seen eating lunch with other women. On the other hand, my husband and I have a table at a local establishment (where there is zero privacy-less than Pizza Bro’s at Wednesday noon hour) I wouldn’t dream of having a drink with anybody but him. And I’d be hurt if he took a female friend/co-worker there.
    .
    (Apologies to any establishment named Cafe Chez Vous or Pizza Bro’s-I meant them as pseudonyms)

  • I cannot recall even once in the past 40 years of my nuclear power career when I have ever had to go out to lunch or dinner alone with a woman not my wife.

    Now I have had woman bosses and we have had closed office door discussions at work about work related issues. And I have had closed door discussions with woman inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, again all about work.

    But not once have I had to go to lunch or dinner alone with anyone that was a woman. Not once.

  • About my Karen [going on 43 plus years now]:

    Rockport Pilot Newspaper; Rockport, Texas
    Letters to Editor: published March 7, 2012

    I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us- Out of the monogamy closet.
    Dear Editor:
    As the dark ages of heterophobia are waning, our society is evolving, for the good, to the point where it can now accept me and my ilk. I cannot deny it any longer-I am coming out of the monogamy closet. Yes! I am faithful to my wife and I always have been since the day we were married over 38 years ago. I have always felt different around those who, with absolutist certainty, preached: self-fulfillment, freedom, liberty, self-worth, if-it-feels-good-do-it, I-gotta-be-me, do-it-my-way, grab-for-all-the-gusto-you-can, grab [another partner]-now, do-not-judge, my-morality-is-good-as-yours, and I-choose-my-morality. Why they want to impose this on me I do not know.
    I knew deep in my heart and in my soul I was different. This is something I can turn on and off, it is a matter of my choice, my free will. It is innate in me. This is the way I was made by God and so I have come to believe it cannot be bad. I knew I was free to choose, it felt so natural. And I chose – over and over, again and again – to love my wife, and only my wife.
    I know many will heap opprobrium on me, and some will even condemn me. So, I would like to begin a dialogue with those who are not like me, even though the grip of monagaphobia for some is overwhelming and the response from some monogaphobes is often shrill, scary, and even violent. Hopefully such a dialogue will spawn a movement to have the right to monogamy recognized legally and, if necessary, enforced by the government with concomitant retroactive compensation for past injustice, with future preferential treatment.
    If it comes to legal action, no doubt many judges, fine judicial legislators, on courts at all levels and on the U.S. Supreme Court, will easily discover the Right to Monogamy hidden in the interstices of the Commerce Clause and in the penumbras of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, buried there long ago by our Founding Parents. I anticipate City Councils across our land will pass hate speech legislation so I and those like me will no longer be assaulted with “one-wifer!”
    I look forward to Monogamy History Month – surprisingly there were monogamists who played major roles in our nation’s storied birth and growth, although this included relatively few politicians and journalists. Monogamy Challenged parking places will facilitate my visits to Wal-Mart. I relish the thought of the educational materials to be produced by organizations funded with my tax money for kindergartners that will portray monogamy in a tender, welcoming, accepting light and provide instruction, in graphic detail, about the mechanics of monogamy. I cannot wait for “Tommy Has One Mother and One Father,” “See How Happy Sally Is With Her [One] Mommy and [One] Daddy,” and “The Illustrated Joy of Monogamous Sex.”
    Monogamy has become the love that dare not be mentioned, for some a stifling, dirty thing. But, in private, I have quietly reveled in it, glorying in the love of my one wife while keeping my mouth shut for fear of reprisal. I can no longer be silent. Now I dare … I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us.
    Guy McClung

  • In my parents circle of friends, some husbands and some wives were congenial about husband from couple A having lunch or a drink with wife from couple B, but it was atypical. Succeeding generations simply do not have the social graces that one did, so it’s inadvisable for anyone else. In my old office, there was a pair who generally had lunch together (man born in 1955, woman in 1966). It always looked odd, but the reputation of the man was such and the proximity of the husband of the woman was such that I think people figured there was nothing going on there.

  • Driving to distraction the left is an extremely short drive, as in backing out of the drive-way. The dogs bark while the caravan moves on.

  • When I was in grad school and still fairly newly married, and I knew that I would be spending an inordinate amount of time with another grad student (same advisor, same interests, same seminars etc.), I made sure she and my wife got to be friends first.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Francis and His Friends Run Like Gleeful, Thrilled Rats Through the Halls of Our Vatican – The Stumbling Block
  • The odd thing is, I imagined this would be a freebie for my more liberal visitors. Sort of a ‘we’re with you on this crazy thing Dave’ opportunity. Nope. It can only be misogyny, Sharia Law, and who knows, Nazis? I heard Mark Shea and Deacon Steve Graydanus discuss this. While they said some of the reactions were overblown, they also said they could understand women saying it’s not fair to them if the man would also have dinner one on one with another man. Did I miss something? Is this Church position now? When I entered the work force c. 1990 it was basic, secular advice to beware getting into compromising situations with female coworkers. Furthermore, a situation where I insisted the only way to my company’s top tier was by a one on one dinner with me would have been attacked by my liberal counterparts back in the day. What happened? I admit I’m not high up in the corporate world today, but is this common now that the only path to success is through one on one dinner meetings?

  • I saw that podcast, Dave and was wondering if you listened to it.

    Did Mark or Steve at least say something positive about Pence or express understanding from his point of view? I mean, ok, some of the secular folks I can understand but the Christians? Those whom should know the verse, “if your right arm causes you to sin…”? What did Mark used to say…

    What would you think of a friend (let’s call him “Bill Clinton”) who is constantly e-mailing you to ask just how far he can go with the hot secretary without it actually crossing the line into, you know, “adultery” (he always puts the word in scare quotes, as though there isn’t really such a thing, and he’s certainly not guilty of it).

    I guess nowadays it’s wrong to try and flee from sin?

  • It is nice to see this sound piece of advice getting some play. It is one I have followed throughout my adult life. Even when dating, maybe especially when dating, I have done so. It seems wise and good and proper and it is nice to hear other married people asserating the value of the policy.

  • And, thank you, Guy McClung, for that thoroughly enjoyable Letter to the Editor.

  • Nate, I noticed that. I mean, like my wife said, she remembers when if it was discovered that a woman had to have a one on one dinner with a man to get ahead, that would be the cause for outrage. Now it’s not only apparently OK, but anyone who chooses not to go out with women other than his wife is suspect? Mark and Steve suggested it was a case of misplaced scrupulousness. Which was odd, because Mark admitted that it would be wrong to share a hotel room with a woman if on a business trip. So clearly there is *something* there regarding common sense. I wonder why the sudden difference? I mean, it was the secularists and women’s groups who would have screamed at the idea that a woman had to dine with a man to get ahead. But should representatives of the Church even budge on such obvious politicizing of a situation? Not to mention the notion of avoiding the near occasion of sin. That is supposed to be somewhere in basic Christian teaching. I don’t think they trashed Pence or anything, I just was taken by the fact that they were clearly trying to walk that line of saying there’s really no reason to call this Sharia Law redux, while clearly not wanting to give Pence the obvious support any believer should give him in this case.

  • Leftists getting into a twist something that is none of their damned business. What else is new?

  • Good stuff, GREG M. All indicators point to the next eight years will be nauseatingly repetitive. The Einstein definition of insanity is on display. our perpetually outraged left (apparently including Mark-who?) is patently stupid or simply insane. You decide.

    Its’ all sound and fury akin to a wind chime in a hurricane.

  • Here I think is good support for Pence. This is from one of the blog sites I visit. I like the man’s writings on marriage and family. He isn’t Catholic, so there are things that probably won’t sit too well with the learned orthodox of our faith, but surely this is the support that Mark Shea and Deacon Steve should have given Pence?
    .
    http://www.kevinathompson.com/mimic-dont-mock-mike-pence/

  • So the same folks that have made it so that I cannot be alone with an single other individual are having fits about…normal manners?

    How often do you have restaurant meals with only one person, anyways? If it’s a group of friends, or of co-workers, and it’s a group.

    Reminds me of that mini-outrage about that football player for San Diego– Mr. Rivers hit the news about three years ago because he had “so many” kids…with his WIFE. ***AFTER*** they were married! (Just checked– now at 8. Just welcomed a new little girl.)

    DJH- If I remember right, one of the angles of attack on Pence is that he left the Church.
    While I’m not a big fan of the guy, I remember getting the impression that he got the same kind of post-Vatican-II religious education that I got… ie, he was taught that the Church wasn’t the Church anymore, by those who were supposed to officially teach him. I might be confusing him with one of the others in the pack, though.

  • Boy, the libs are really digging deep. Before my husband’s first deployment after we were married he said to me that we should never put ourselves in any situation that would give cause for scandal and I agreed. The squadron detted out in fours aboard destroyers so there were always a few “sea wives” at squadron parties. Everyone behaved. However there was a group of young sea wives who went to the BOQ bar for dancing on DJ night. Bad idea. Two divorces ensued from that. Regarding work: I was a Flag Secretary at the time and on a couple of occasions had to travel with the admiral as a sub for the male Flag Lieutenant. For overnights the admiral had a suite and I had a room elsewhere in the BOQ. If the Flag LT were along he probably would have stayed in the suite’s second bedroom. If the admiral and I went to dinner we usually wore our uniforms. On one occasional we were in civvies and the hostess seated us side by side. We were both uncomfortable. The admiral immediately explained that this was a business dinner and asked her to change the place settings. Good rule is how would my spouse feel about this situation? If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.

  • “If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.”

    You can underline that CAM!

Elections Have Consequences

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

The next time someone tells you there is no difference between the parties on abortion, look them in the eye and call them a liar:

 

With a rare tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence, the Senate on Thursday sent a bill to President Donald Trump’s desk giving states permission to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Pence and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, who is recovering from back surgery and used a walker inside the chamber, were dramatically summoned to the Capitol to help pass the measure by a razor-thin margin.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  • “Mark Shea hardest hit.”

    I don’t know how he can now argue that he is not in proximate, material cooperation with evil as a strong supporter of the Democratic Party.

  • There is a difference between the parties on this issue. It’s why, despite everything, I will continue to vote Republican until there is a better choice. However, the party of death will never be the better choice.

  • Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the nauseating GOP Alaska Senator who claims to be Catholic but is a bought and sold stooge for Planned Parenthood, certainly voted against the measure. Murkowski is almost as bad a Barbara Milkulski, the former Maryland Senator. People with Polish surnames who support Planned Parenthood, whose founder saw Slavs as subhuman, deserve the paddle on the rear end that Foghorn Leghorn gave the barnyard dog in the Looney Tunes cartoons.

  • Here in Texas, Planned Parenthood of Houston opened the largest abortion facility
    in the nation– a 78,000 square-foot behemoth. The Houston Democrats chose
    that venue for their annual Christmas party. I kid you not. I believe that speaks
    volumes about the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is merely the baby-killing arm
    of the Democrat Party.

6 Responses to Vice President Mike Pence Addresses March for Life

  • Wonderful! God is Good,

  • I like Mike Pence. I liked him, and voted for him, as our Governor. It was a good speech, a timely speech. But, I would personally have felt better about it, if Mike had remained Catholic. TR.

  • Thank God things are starting to take a turn for the better. I just wish the catholic church, priest, bishops, and the pope will start speaking up more for these babies. They need to get a back bone and work with our new president.

  • God said to Moses: “I AM WHO I AM”, My Name forever…and forever. God is existence.
    Rene Descarte said: “I think, therefore I am.” and all science has followed the self-awareness test as the standard for existence of the human person. Was Descarte saying that he did not exist before he became aware of himself? Or was Descarte saying that he began to think as he was created as all men are created equal, at the infusion of his transcendent soul at the beginning of life in the womb?…but Descarte never, ever proved if and when he began to cogitate, nor that cogitation was indeed a viable proof of his existence.
    With new science, the existence of DNA and chromosomes, the existence and individual identity of the newly begotten human soul, the rational, immortal human soul is proved. “I am who I am.”, is the proclamation of existence of every newly begotten, metaphysical, individual person, created in sovereign personhood, created in the image and likeness of God, with intellect and free will, created by God, procreated by humankind, and the adopted child of God.
    God creates life. God is the Lord of Life. God says: “I AM WHO I AM.”
    Father Robert Spitzer teaches that only the sovereign person can answer the question: “WHO am I?” The people of a nation too, with their ancestors and their constitutional Posterity can answer the question “WHO am I?” Each individual member of the human species, singularly and in concert can answer the question “WHO am I?” “I am a child of God, who exists as a sovereign person and who is endowed with innate, unalienable human rights that become civil rights in community with a nation of people and nations of peoples, all of sovereign personhood.
    Our Creator, God, in infinity, answers the question: “I AM WHO I AM”, before all ages. The Lord calls all men by name: “I am.” “I am in existence.” “I exist.” I pursue my destiny in Happiness.
    The Lord, God, calls all men: “the lesser gods”, (notation later) then proceeds to command that man does not worship himself in thought, word or deed. “I AM the Lord, thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.”
    The personification of God’s divine Justice and the guardian of the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, the Supreme Court for the United States is bound by the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me God.
    The refusal to acknowledge God in prayer ban, the refusal to acknowledge the sovereign personhood of Dred Scott, baby Roe , the sick and the dying, the refusal to acknowledge the Truth in pornography, a lie about human sexuality, the refusal to acknowledge the Truth about the addiction to sodomy, of female husbands and male brides, the Truth about children belonging to their parents as their first teachers, the Truth about all lands and waterways belonging to each and every person in joint and common tenancy, the Truth about all tax money belonging to the taxpayers while being administered by the administration, the Truth about the church being held in trust for all generations, the Truth about all gifts and donations being untaxable as sacrifice to God, the Truth about the relationship of man with his Creator in thought, man’s conscience, word and peaceable assembly, mans’ religion in the worship of God, the Truth about the human soul of our constitutional Posterity, all future generations, the Truth about the sovereign person in existence from the very first moment of existence in the womb and the Truth about the moral and legal innocence of the newly begotten human being in the womb being the standard of Justice for the state, the compelling interest of the state in guarding the newly begotten sovereign person’s civil rights.
    The Truth is “I am.”
    Mary De Voe

  • Mary De Voe,,,, 2 Corinthians 4 : 13 Tim

Not Worth a Pitcher of Warm Spit

Tuesday, October 4, AD 2016

624006

 

 

Worst damnfool mistake I ever made was letting myself be elected Vice President of the United States. Should have stuck with my old chores as Speaker of the House. I gave up the second most important job in the Government for one that didn’t amount to a hill of beans. I spent eight long years as Mr. Roosevelt’s spare tire. I might still be Speaker if I didn’t let them elect me Vice-President.

John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner

Open thread on the Vice (Yawn!) Presidential debate.  This debate features one candidate with truly Catholic moral beliefs, and he is the apostate from Catholicism to Evangelicalism, Mike Pence!  Tim Kaine of course had the misfortune as a young man of having his religious beliefs influenced by Jesuits.  Just imagine what might have been if he encountered a Catholic religious order!  Potential vice presidents debating always remind me of two bald men fighting over a comb.  However if Clinton wins Kaine might well have to assume the Presidency once Clinton’s health deteriorates to the point where she can no longer function, unless Bill Clinton pulls an Edith Wilson.  Trump seems hale and hearty, but he is seventy and the chance of Pence assuming the Presidency of a President in his seventies is not inconsequential.

Update:

At 8:41 PM Central Time Pence is winning going away.  Calm, reasoned and oh so effective at staying on message.  Kaine acts as if he drank a dozen cups of coffee.  Too wired and not effective.  I wish Pence was on the top of the ticket.  He may serve to reassure voters that he will provide adult supervision in a Trump administration.

At 9:13 PM Pence is still dominating the debate.  Pence tonight is gravitas incarnate.

Frank Luntz sums up the reaction of Democrats to Tim Kaine’s performance with this picture:

ct-e-i_w8aahqql

Note how “Catholic” Tim Kaine at the close of the debate attempted to gain votes on the backs of aborted babies.  Truly disgusting.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Not Worth a Pitcher of Warm Spit

  • I would say that Kaine’s performance thus far is somewhat Trumpesque.

  • Agreed Greg! Bizarre. Kaine learned all the wrong lessons from the first debate.

  • Never dialogue with one of Satan’s minions.

  • This post nailed it. I suspect that Pence secretly disagrees with at least 30%+ of Trump’s statements and positions. But you know what? Pence is a good and loyal man–out of principle and charity, not ideological or personal self-centeredness. Or so it seems. And yes, there’s a difference. Pence mopped the floor with Kaine, but he did it as a gentlemen.

  • Kaine conflated death penalty with abortion by using that at the beginning of answering the last question on conflict between faith and politics. Because JP II, B XVI and now Francis have all been stridently anti-death penalty, he falsely used that as an example of Church teaching – “my Church opposes the death penalty but as Governor I upheld Virginia’s death penalty laws.” The fact is that B XVI said Catholics in good standing can disagree about the death penalty but cannot disagree about certain fixed issues like abortion.
    .
    The other thing that really pissed me off is Kaine saying that we should trust women to make private decisions about their own bodies without govt interference. That’s BS. The baby isn’t her body. And what about the man who fathered the child? Doesn’t he have rights?
    .
    Here’s the thing. You wallow in heat like a freaking baboon, then you make a baby. You don’t get to say, “Oh, I made a mistake.” Are you really such a non-sentient animal that you can’t control your own body and you just have to have your genitals titillated no matter what, and then abdicate responsibility and evade accountability for what you so willingly did? And the “you” in those statements is plural because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
    .
    You know, in the case of Democrats, maybe they are non-sentient animals and maybe they should be treated as such. Kaine certainly looked like a Hyena last night. When is the Church going to ex-communicate these heretics? And how long will God stay His mighty hand of mercy for the unborn before He wipes people like Kaine into the dust bin of history along with Hitler and Stalin and Mao?

  • @Leviticus Quinctius Cincinnatus.

    Yes! They are animals.
    They believe in animal instinct and man sharing that trait because many of them do not believe in the existence of God.
    Spirit? What’s that?

    So they kill. They cheat. They pillage not caring in the slightest of their neighbors nor the concept of eternity.

    Dogs and pigs.

  • Of course , I didn’t watch. From the video tape, Kaine proved competent to inquire daily about the president’s health and attend state funerals, not much else. I don’t know about “devout Catholics.” Does the definition include living in an open marriage and murdering millions of unborn babies?

  • “Frank Luntz sums up the reaction of Democrats to Tim Kaine’s performance with this picture.”

    That, Mr. McClarey, is what the kids call a meme. And it’s an offensive one to corpses at that. How dare you, you living body supremacist.

  • Plus, De mortuis nil nissi bonum. Also, Ben Franklin said, “If you have nothing good to say about someone, don’t say anything.” The quote especially “works” for Hillary regarding her list of zero accomplishes.

  • There is something anomalous abut Tim Kaine. He’s from a perfectly ordinary family, supposedly graduates from college summa cum laude, cadges a degree from Harvard Law School (surely that’s overkill if you just want an ordinary law job), does mission work in Honduras along the way, then settles in his wife’s home town. He works for one firm which was subsequently dissolved, then goes to work for his father-in-law’s firm, a provincial metropolitan firm with (as we speak) 27 lawyers. All of the political offices he held between 1987 and 2005 were part time legislative and/or ceremonial positions, then he’s elected Governor. Along the way, this summa cum laude Harvard lawyer with the Jesuit schooling utters the same banal rot on non-negotiables every partisan Democrat does. Couldn’t all that schooling have taught him some creative rot?

    The pieces don’t fit together.

  • “Tim Kaine is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

Of Veep Speeches and What Might Have Been

Thursday, July 21, AD 2016

 

Mike Pence never has been known as an orator, but he rose to the occasion last night and gave the best speech of his career.  He will give the Trump campaign some much needed stability and dignity, and, surprisingly, some good humor.  Trump made a good choice.

However, the best Vice Presidential acceptance speech I have ever heard, indeed the best speech I have ever heard at any political convention made by anyone not named Ronald Reagan, was that of Sarah Palin in 2008:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Of Veep Speeches and What Might Have Been

  • Favorite line, “I’m a Christian, conservative and Republican. In that order.”- Can I get a witness?

  • Thank you for posting Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech. A good reminder. After observing and listening to Sarah Palin and John McCain at a northern VA rally, it became clear that she deserved a better candidate at the top of the ticket. McCain, known for his strong personality, appeared to be on tranquilizers throughout the whole contest. The McCain campaign did their best to minimize a loyal Palin when she was their best asset. My guess it was a jealous Cindy McCain. Older than Palin, Mrs. McCain tried to compete with longer and blonder hair and her classic wardrobe became trendy with shorter skirts.

Trump Picks Pence as Veep

Thursday, July 14, AD 2016

 

Trump has decided to pick Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his Veep:

Gov. Mike Pence is dropping his re-election bid in Indiana to become Donald Trump’s running mate.

IndyStar has confirmed that Trump plans to announce Pence as his selection for vice president, ending a weeks-long vice presidential casting call during which Trump vetted a handful of high-profile Republicans.

Trump’s national campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said “a decision has not been made.” A formal announcement is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday in Manhattan.

The long-awaited decision upends the political landscape in Indiana and at least partially remakes the Trump campaign in Pence’s image.

In Pence, Trump has added a social conservative who GOP strategists say will reassure rank-and-file Republicans that Trump can be trusted to pursue their interests. Veteran political observers say Pence, a former U.S. House member and chairman of the House Republican Conference, will provide a disciplined counter to Trump’s improvisational campaign style. Pence also brings fundraising power and credibility on a wide range of policy issues that are important to conservatives.

Pence is set to officially become the vice presidential nominee during the Republican National Convention, which starts July 18 in Cleveland. He could become the first vice president from Indiana since Dan Quayle took office in 1989 under George H.W. Bush.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Trump Picks Pence as Veep

  • Well, NeverTrump has its candidate now. Pence wasn’t rejected by the primary voters, and he’s worthy of Trump’s support to be president. He’s got a good resume and reasonable conservative credentials, and he’s inoffensive.

  • If this is true then I can rest easier when I do not cast a vote in this election. The first time I have done so in my life. I have voted for an LDS and many protestants, but I will not vote for a former Catholic who because of his wife has “received Christ as his Savior.” He did that when he made his First Communion. No.

  • Trump after the Nice attack told Fox’s Gretchen that he has not picked veep for sure yet which could be second thoughts because Pence is against barring Muslims as unconstitutional.

  • I have to agree with your exact point. Said the same thing when I first heard his name mentioned. Battle of Indiana. We lost. Although no one paid much attention it was a watershed moment for religious liberty and conscience protection. The whole scene what a disgrace as far as I’m concerned. Pence was photographed with a small group of religious leaders and conscientious objectors signing the law- all smiling. No big deal. Next day all hell broke loose and the gay lobby squashed him like a grape. The law was thrown in the garbage. Pence apologized. And of course there was a domino effect. No-one is allowed to not like the contraception/abortion/gay ‘marriage’/gender stuff. You must embrace it. Cotton candy spine alright. Sickening.

  • In Pence, Trump has added a social conservative who GOP strategists say will reassure rank-and-file Republicans…
    –Donald R. McClarey

    I’m not reassured.

  • In Pence, Trump has added a social conservative who GOP strategists say will reassure rank-and-file Republicans…
    Indianopolis Star

    I’m not reassured.

  • I’m so unreassured, I can’t spell Indianapolis half the time.

Trump to Meet With Hog Castrator

Tuesday, July 5, AD 2016

 

Last week I suggested that Joni Ernst, Senator  and hog castrator from Iowa, would make a good Veep for Trump, and yesterday he met with her:

 

The presumptive GOP presidential nominee spent Sunday with Republican Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, a former congressman with years of political experience.

“Spent time with Indiana Governor Mike Pence and family yesterday,” Trump said Monday morning. “Very impressed, great people!”

Later Trump revealed he’d be spending some time Monday — July 4 — with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a rising party star.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Trump to Meet With Hog Castrator

Time to Drive Planned Parenthood From the Federal Trough

Monday, January 10, AD 2011

Congressman Mike Pence (R.Ind), has been a tireless advocate of driving Worse Than Murder, Inc, a\k\a Planned Parenthood away from the Federal trough.  Last week on January 7, he reintroduced his bill to defund Planned Parenthood.  Here is his statement:

“It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion.  It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion at home or abroad.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Time to Drive Planned Parenthood From the Federal Trough

  • If everyone in America watched the documentary film- Maafa21- which shows the history of Planned Parenthood seeped in eugenics and racism – all funding would end immediately. Watch Maafa21 and see for yourself http://www.maafa21.com

  • I am Catholic. Personally, I could never support abortion. However, this is a secular society. Until the law/US Supreme Court say otherwise, abortion is no only legal it is not the killing of a person. Politicians opposed to abortion have a choice, instead of flapping their moral jaws, changed the law. Find that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Constitution.
    I’m told a majority of Americans are opposed to abortions. If so, then they can amend the constitution instead of blowing millions fighting something that only serves to distract the majority from the failures of government and has no affect on the sacrament of marriage—same sex marriage. Same sex marriage kills no one. Abortion kills millions every year. Lets get our priorities straight IF We Are Serious.
    antonio

  • “Personally, I could never support abortion”
    That’s big of you.

    “Until the law/US Supreme Court say otherwise, abortion is no only legal it is not the killing of a person.”

    The Supreme Court could have a thousand rulings making abortion legal, and abortion would always be the killing of a person.

    “Politicians opposed to abortion have a choice, instead of flapping their moral jaws, changed the law. Find that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Constitution.”

    Have you been paying any attention to the battle over abortion for the past 38 years, or have you been living under a tree stump?

    “I’m told a majority of Americans are opposed to abortions. If so, then they can amend the constitution instead of blowing millions fighting something that only serves to distract the majority from the failures of government and has no affect on the sacrament of marriage—same sex marriage. Same sex marriage kills no one. Abortion kills millions every year. Lets get our priorities straight IF We Are Serious.”

    Abortion is a graver evil than same sex marriage, but I am sure that people can, and will, oppose both.

  • “The Supreme Court could have a thousand rulings making abortion legal, and abortion would always be the killing of a person.”
    You don’t understand the difference between a private opinion and the law. Those who have abortions have a “private opinion” too: that what’s inside them isn’t a human being. Their private opinion is the law. Yours isn’t. Yours wont save one fetus because as a man, you have no control over the path of a pregnancy not even of your biological fetus. –that is also the law.
    Perhaps before being aborted, a fetus will find comfort in knowing the law allowing their death continues because people who could change it are satisfied with their private opinions.

  • “You don’t understand the difference between a private opinion and the law. Those who have abortions have a “private opinion” too: that what’s inside them isn’t a human being. Their private opinion is the law. Yours isn’t.”

    Having spent the last 28 years practicing law, I believe I have an understanding of the distiction between a private opinion and a law. I also have a grasp of reality and the law. The Supreme Court can call the unborn non-persons forever, and that tribunal will not change one iota the reality that the unborn are persons.

    “Perhaps before being aborted, a fetus will find comfort in knowing the law allowing their death continues because people who could change it are satisfied with their private opinions.”

    Once again, have you been following the battle over abortion for the past 38 years, or have you been living under a tree stump?

  • Not a stump, a cabbage patch. That’s where i was 38 years ago. Then my mother found me and at 26 i am a resident in a major emergency trauma unit.
    I’m sure you talk about children and fetuses a lot and probably better appreciate the complexities of policy and law. For me, I have seen hundreds of them in every imaginable conditions–some , most folks wouldn’t know what they were looking at.
    In many cases we team with an obstetrics group, so that aspect is not within my jurisdiction any longer. I’m not judging, but I have seen them abort. We don’t.
    The “battle” you refer to has always been conducted on many different fields, legal political, medical, private. It’s all too complex for me so i tend to desire some level of fundamental agreement. I don’t see any on the horizon.

  • As a doctor you can be of great assistance to the pro-life cause. One aspect of the pro-life struggle that I have been engaged in for the past 15 years is serving on the board of directors of the pro-life crisis pregnancy center in my county. I have been president of the board for the past decade. Volunteer doctors can be crucial for such organizations. If you wish, do a google search in your city and you will probably come up with several pro-life crisis pregnany centers. As a resident I imagine you have almost no spare time now. Eventually this may be an aspect of pro-life volunteer service that you might wish to consider.

  • Spare time?? You are both sensitive and correct. I have none. I am not familiar with “pro life pregnancy centers” I hope they are loving, supportive programs that don’t scare the living bejezzus out of young pregnant women. Those that provide support to mothers, after birth and as long and as much as they need, are wonderful. I have seen a few. I sense, your work is along those lines –today’s pregnant mother will likely find themselves pregnant again. Creating an experience that will save all her children and maybe even those of her friends, is like that pebble in a pond.
    the best

  • The volunteers at the crisis pregnancy center in my county are all women, mostly evangelicals, and all unpaid, except for the director and assistant director who are paid token salaries. The kindness and care for the women who come to the center they have exhibited over the years is a wonder to behold. Several of the women they have helped have come back to become volunteers themselves.

    The pebble in the pond analogy is apt. As evil has ramifications, so good has ramifications. They keep a baby book with pictures of infants they have helped get into this world along with pictures of their proud mothers. Some of those infants are now parents themselves. It is a heartening volume to leaf through.

Planned Parenthood, What Happened to the Money?

Tuesday, June 22, AD 2010

A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has brought out an interesting mystery in regard to the federal funds given to Worse Than Murder, Inc, aka Planned Parenthood:

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Planned Parenthood, What Happened to the Money?

Pro-Life Republicans

Sunday, November 8, AD 2009

pro-life gopLast night all but one, who voted present, of the House Republicans voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment in spite of knowing that its passage made likely the final passage of ObamaCare.  Here is a statement of the House Republican Leadership issued last night before either the Stupak amendment or ObamaCare was passed:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) issued the following statement in support of an amendment offered by Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph Pitts (R-PA) that would prohibit federal funding of abortions under the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) health care plan: “We believe in the sanctity of life, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment addresses a moral issue of the utmost concern. It will limit abortion in the United States. Because of this, while we strongly and deeply oppose the underlying bill, we decided to stand with Life and support Stupak-Pitts.

Continue reading...

43 Responses to Pro-Life Republicans

  • It is an easy decision when you are genuinely pro-life; however, political pragmatism would be very tempting in this situation. It must have been difficult to know that you are voting to create the climate that will pass the Obamanation assault on health care.

    Nevertheless, we may credit them with taking the correct moral stance and pray for the Senate to kill the bill.

    What the heck is with Cao? Is he another Dede?

  • Cao is very liberal for a Republican but also absolutely pro-life. I am sure no political calculation entered into his head and that he voted for ObamaCare simply because he thought it was the right thing to do, especially since he probably assumes he isn’t coming back to Congress no matter what he does. He was elected from an intensely Democrat district in New Orleans simply because his opponent is a crook and it would take a major political miracle for him to win re-election.

  • They receive it from me, Don. I really was expecting a “present” vote from them, to assure the defeat of the health care bill… but they really surprised me. My hat is off to them.

  • I have been struggling with this all night. Keep in mind I am no a Republican and I think over the years they have done much damage to the cause of liberty. I also find many to pander to religion and actually employ political pragmatism.

    Part of me wants to be mad at them for giving the Demoncrats cover to pass this monstrosity. Stupak will likely be removed or the rules developed in darkness, behind closed doors by unelected officials will create a work around to kill babies. Nevertheless, we are to always pray, “Fiat voluntus tua” – Thy Will be done. We have to trust God and even if some Republicans voted for this ammendment knowing that it would allow the assualt on health care to pass and perhaps just to fool us into voting for them in 2010 – it is still a principled victory.

    Life is the most precious gift and all other rights, both human and civil are derived from the right to life. The defense of life has been marginalized so much, even by Christians, perhaps especially by Catholics. I am so sick of being called a one-issue voter – I am not, neither are most pro-lifers I know. It is the primary issue and that cannot be avoided no matter how severe the mental gymnastics employed may be. So long as killing the innocent is legal and even encouraged this country is heading toward extinction.

    This is a principled victory and we must give thanks even if we are tempted, as I am, to see it as hollow becuase God’s ways are not our ways.

    Mary, Mother of Life, ora pro nobis.

  • “Cao is very liberal for a Republican but also absolutely pro-life. I am sure no political calculation entered into his head…”

    If he were “absolutely” pro-life, wouldn’t the rationing, contraception, and other nasty provisions come into play for him? Evidently not.

    Also, I’d be more likely to believe no political calculations entered his head if he didn’t wait until the Dems secured the necessary number of votes to win before he voted.

  • Here is what Cao says about this on his webite.

    “Tonight, Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (LA-2) voted in favor of the comprehensive health reform bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

    Of his vote, Cao said: “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

    Cao said: “I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.

    The bill passed the House at a 220-215 vote.

    Cao said: “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

    Cao said: “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.”

    http://josephcao.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=154007

    Needless to say I disagree with Cao profoundly on this, but I do not doubt his sincerity.

  • Seems to me this is just a brief side trip along the road of the decline of western civilization.

    Reelection is usually what matters most to folks, if it means maintaining power, influence and a “comfortable” standard of living. I am grateful not to be a politician.

    Nothing surprises me. I have come to “lean on” no institutions and very, very few people. We are each capable of the worst choices and these days those choices are made with ever increasing frequency, I regret to observe.

    We pay “lip service” to moral absolutes, finding all manner of “justifications and rationalizations” to find cover for our decisions which are made in support of the “Culture of Death”, although we try to wash our hands of these as did Pilate when he handed Jesus over to pay for OUR SINS, FOLKS.

    MINE AND YOURS.

    Some things never change.

  • It was also the political expedient thing to do. Can you imagine the outrage had they voted against the Stupak Amendment?

  • This seems to be good news for the pro-life cause—so why does it taste like poison to me?

  • “It was also the political expedient thing to do. Can you imagine the outrage had they voted against the Stupak Amendment?”

    The politics aren’t that simple restrainedradical. A strong majority of Republicans oppose abortion. Almost all Republicans oppose ObamaCare. I am seeing plenty of opposition on Republican sites to this move:

    “As I responded to Daybrook, I appreciate the answer but this is horrible strategy. The NRLC should have been adults about this. They are going to save this amendment and ensure final passage. Then it’s going to get struck in conference and a chance to kill this will have been lost.

    Right now it’s passing with 63 Dem votes and 170+ Republican votes.

    The GOP leadership got rolled on this by Pelosi.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/

    Long term I think this will work out well for the Republicans, but short term there is a political price to pay for this move by the Republicans in the House.

  • Donald,
    You are not thinking clearly. Of course it was the politically expedient thing to do. The logic is impeccable: Republicans are not really pro-life and will do whatever is politically expedient; Republicans voted in favor of this pro-life measure; ergo, the vote must have been politically expedient. Hope that’s clear now.

  • 🙂

  • “short term there is a political price to pay for this move by the Republicans in the House.”

    I don’t think so. Voting against the bill gave them the cover they need. There may be some opposition, but I think the vast majority of their constituents will support this move. It’s a win-win for both sides. The Democrats get to vote pro-choice and for universal health care and the Republicans get to vote pro-life and against socialized medicine.

  • I see that some people in this thread are more partisan Republicans than Catholics. I’ve met Joseph Cao. My wife has been to numerous fundraisers for Joseph Cao. Joseph Cao is a highly honorable man, a true Catholic public figure. He promised that he would support healthcare reform if the Stupak amendment was included, simply because he knew it was the right thing to do. Joseph Cao is a hero. If only a few Republicans would follow him.

    And to Donald – yes, I very much appreciate GOP support for the Stupak amendment. The cynic in me would say they were caught between a rock and a hard place, and could not be seen publicly opposing a pro-life measure on tardy political grounds. But let’s give them some credit. And now that we have a decent bill with ironclad abortion protection, I would like to see some Republicans start supporting this bill – just a few Catholic Republicans would make a difference here. So where were they last night? Are they willing to support a pro-life universal health insurance plan that actually reduces the deficit, or are they instead enslaved to a rigid free market ideology and to insurance company money?

    I don’t know what is going to happen in conference. But with enough GOP support, we can get this bill passed withe the Stupak amendment.

  • Somebody mentioned “socialized medicine”. Sigh. This reform twins an individial mandate with community rating-style restrictions on what insurance companies can do (you know, refusing coverage, dropping people, charging exhorbitant premia based on “pre-existing condition”). For everybody in empoloyer-insurance, hardly anything changes. For those in medicare and medicaid, hardly anything changes. For those in the individual markets, they will purchase insurance on a regulated exchange, which will include a public option that will be wholly funded by premia and which cannot use medicare reimbursement rates. And those below a certain threshold will receive subsidies to help they purchase the insurance.

    How is any of this “socialized medicine”? You know, people on the right would perhaps had a better ability to shape this debate if they actually delved into the issues, instead of relying on slogans.

  • We agree that Cao is an honorable man Tony. As for the bill I think it is atrocious and I pray it is buried in the Senate, although from my partisan perspective it would be better if it passed since I believe that it would ensure the GOP taking the House back in 2010. At any rate if a bill does get out of the Senate it will bear as much relationship to the House bill as a bat does to a spider.

  • Please Tony. Your whole goal has been a single payer, socialized medicine, system. The intent of this bill is to drive private insurers out of business and to force people to become health wards of the state ultimately. Fortunately this bill has as much chance of ever becoming law as Madonna, the strumpet and not the Mother of God, does of becoming a spokeswoman for the Eagle Forum.

  • A good AP story explaining why the House bill is DOA in the Senate.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

  • We have to be careful not to confuse Catholic intentions (ends) with practical methods (means). Yes, it is true that we, as Catholics, are to provide for all those in need and that includes health care; however, the Church does not demand that we use the government for that purpose. Does government have a role? Yes. Not always at the federal level. In fact as seldom as possible should the federal government be employed.

    Furthermore, Charity is what we as individuals are called to do, when government forces one of us to provide for another then it is theft and not charity.

    This bill is a disaster. Anyone who supports it has either not read it, doesn’t understand it, has no concpet of basic enconomics, is extremely naive, or has sinister intentions to make us all slaves of the state.

    I haven’t read this entire thing, it is over 2,000 pages!!!! The parts I have read are frigtening. We will be left with one, two or three enormous insurance companies with their market secured by government force. I doubt we will get to government provided health care. What we will probably get is government protection for a few insurance companies at the expense of all the other insurance companies and the people.

    Even if the Stupak ammendment makes it into the spider or the bat version that Donald is referring to, that does not guarantee that abortions will not be increased under this mess. Bills become laws and laws become regulations. Regs are not written by elected reps, they are determined by government agencies behind closed doors and always further the expansion of government and aid the corporate interests that fabricated the legislation in the first place.

    The murder of the per-born, the elderly, the disabled, you know the same old targets Eugenecists have always had is firmly set in the minds of many of those in power and any and all means to achieve this will be utilized. Those on the Left and the Right, the Libertarians (of all stripes), the Republicans and the Democrats all need to realize this NOW. If we play ‘wait and see’ it will be too late to stop it. We’ve been killing babies for almost four decades and this is going to be just another step toward more death and the destruction of what this nation can be.

    Combine this mess with Cap and Trade and you have a recipe for how you make the USA into China. No Catholic in their right mind can want that.

    I am confident that this will die in the Senate; however, these are dark times and anything is possible. Pray.

  • Suz,

    I’m with you.

    This’ll disappear in committee *IF* the Senate passes the health care bill.

    But in the end this violates the rule of subsidiarity.

    Technically speaking, why bother giving money to Catholic hospitals, or any other Catholic Charity, if the government is going to provide it to you at the expense of your children having to pay off this monstrosity of a debt in the very near future.

  • How is any of this “socialized medicine”? You know, people on the right would perhaps had a better ability to shape this debate if they actually delved into the issues, instead of relying on slogans.

    1). As someone that follows politics, one should be able to safely assume you are aware that Republicans have offered, in recent years, several reform proposals. Agree or disagree, there is substantive opposition. And slogans are necessarily a part of all debates.

    2). The label “socialize,” and the ensuing slogans, are correct. This House proposal is a large-scale federal government intrusion and cash influx (which is sickening for those of those of us that can’t stand the quite brazen A. Stern and SEIU). In this context, “nationalize” is an incomplete but usable description. And to “nationalize” is to “socialize.” These two words, in the political context of advanced liberal democracies, are synonyms. (In fact, feel free to go right ahead and make a case for any one time in 20th Century American history where this was not the case – I’ve had people try and it’s pretty difficult.) This is why I have for some time now found the supposedly “Catholic anarchist” arguments for this particular brand of reform to be quite strange.

    3). As an advocate for health care reform, I applaud the efforts of Rep. Stupak and also hope the Democratic efforts, for far too long the pawn of public sector unions, trial lawyers, and the abortion lobby, go down in flames. Any reform efforts need, at minimum, three things: a). strong protections for the unborn b). a serious appraisal of the demographic impact of baby boomer entitlements, senior care – including discussion of some manner of what could be termed ‘rationing,’ and illegal immigration (I favor a halt on all immigration, especially with double digit unemployment and until such time as the number comes much close to 3 or 4 percent – the wage destruction of the past few decades has been terrible) c). measures that make trial lawyers furious.

    All Catholics must agree on the first point. The Senate Democrats and the president are horrible on that score, especially compared to the always running for re-election House, but let us hope for a surprise.

  • In regard to Representative Cao, this article is in accord with my view of him:

    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/08/defending-cao

  • Cao is a good guy. Part of the problem here is the LSU Charity hospital that was destroyed by Katrina and still has not been rebuilt.

    It was pretty clear to a lot of us on Obama’s visit to New Orelans and his elusive answers on Federal finds for this that he sending a message to CAO. I think CAO doid what he had to do

  • This is NO victory. This is a political public stunt, & abortion was used as a red herring.

    This is the Stupak Amendment:

    Page 154, after line 18, insert the following new section (and conform the table of contents of
    Division A accordingly):

    SEC 265. LIMITATIONS ON ABORTION FUNDING.

    (a) IN GENERAL.–No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act

    (or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion

    or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage

    of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder,

    physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician,

    place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including

    a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy

    itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest.

    The last clause: “unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest,” places in law a class of human beings that has no protection of life and is jeopardy of loss of life through no fault or responsible action of their own: those who have been conceived by the sins of rape or incest and have not yet been born. This is NOT a pro-life amendment.

    I got this from a friend in regards to the Rep who voted present:

    “Well, Shadegg had a plan to throw sand in the gears and likely ruin the political machinery grinding out a victory for the government takeover of health care. He was rounding up the votes to kill the pro- life amendment (by voting “present”) and thereby killing the whole bill and quite possibly the entire effort. This would have caused such a train wreck, it is doubtful the liberals could have
    recovered, i.e., Waterloo.”

    http://prop207az.blogspot.com/2009/11/with-friends-like-right-to-life-who.html

    I wonder if Rep Shadegg’s-(AZ) strategy actually would have killed the bill?

    Because of the USCCB encouraging lay faithful to call their Rep to add the Stupak (anti-life) amendment to the bogus health “care” bill, we could possibly have a socialistic country. Thanks USCCB! Next time you want to do something dramatic, have the pastors read & stuff the bulletins with
    Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

    Faithful Catholics NEVER have & NEVER will support socialism!!!

  • Faithful Catholics will never support socialism? Indeed, if you define socialism correctly and not as a mere slogan. But remember, Catholic social teaching tells us that faithful Catholics should also eschew the ideology of free market liberalism. Pius XI referred to both as the “twin rocks of shipwreck” – extreme individualism and extreme collectivism.

  • “Combine this mess with Cap and Trade and you have a recipe for how you make the USA into China. No Catholic in their right mind can want that.”

    China has neither universal health care nor cap-and-trade. Did you mean the UK?

  • Or did you mean that no Catholic in their right mind can want to make the USA into Malta which does have universal health care and cap-and-trade.

  • Pope Pius XI:
    “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist”

    Every Pope, beginning w/ Leo XIII to our current Pope Benedict, condemns socialism. The main underlining reason is that socialism ultimately denies the central truth of Christianity, that man needs GOD.

    The bill does not deal only w/ “health care.” There are other issues in the bill such as, the bill will create a government home visitation program, with federally funded bureaucrats giving out parenting advice, and nothing in the bill makes it clear that these programs must be voluntary.

    I take it you support the bill, because my previous post started w/ the wording on the Stupak amendment, showing how it is NOT pro-life & as well, to Shadegg’s plan. “But remember” the Catholic Church is pro-life. However, you don’t discuss these items, instead you zero in on socialism, because in your mind you think the USCCB was right. Well, they weren’t & now they are regretting their decision. They DON’T approve of the bill.

    Get it in your head – Americans want health care REFORM – not govt. take over.

  • The Stupak Amendment–if it stays in after the Conference sausage making (and I think it will, all things considered)–certainly removes the deal killer aspect of the House plan for me. And the Amendment also greatly diminishes the problems with the conscience clauses, which were pretty iffy beforehand.

    As much as it may grate folks here, MM is unimpeachably correct–health care is a right. In the absence of any other moral objections, it isn’t a bad day for Catholics. Far from it.

    Now the kicker is to see what the Senate does, and to make sure the Amendment stays in.

  • NY Times: Dems Banking on Later Squeezing Pro-Life Language Out of Bill in Committee
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110705.html

    Abortion in or out of the bill was a ruse. If Stupak’s Amendment stays in, which I highly doubt, don’t think for one moment that Planned Parenthood & other abortion activists will not be plotting how to bring this bill to court in three years to say it is unconstitutional.

  • If it stays in, they instantly lose the Court challenge on stare decisis. Hyde survived the Supreme Court.

    A “ruse”? Maybe that’s what the pro-aborts were hoping, but I don’t think that’s fair to the overwhelming majority who voted for Stupak.

  • Actually I think one can argue from Catholic Social Teaching that this is a failure for Catholics. Starting here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110817808.html

  • rradical: “China has neither universal health care nor cap-and-trade. Did you mean the UK?”

    Sure, UK, China, whatever. It is just the difference between socialism and communism. A little bit less of a bad thing doesn’t make it good.

    Control health care (HR 3962), life (Roe v. Wade), food (FDA), money (the Fed) and energy (Cap and Tax) and you have slaves not citizens.

  • Just becuase health care is a right doesn’t mean the government has to directly provide it. Our rights come from God and are secured by government. Government can secure the right to health care by allowing a market of businesses to provide medical services and insurance services as well as allowing overall wealth to increase by not confiscating it so that we can take care of the indigent with Charity instead of theft.

    Why would anyone who is remotely Catholic want the government to start providing our tangible rights directly. Health care includes food, water, exercise, medical treatment, shelter, clothing and love – should the government provide all that as well?

  • “Why would anyone who is remotely Catholic want the government to start providing our tangible rights directly.”

    Because an uninsured friend of mine died at age 33 because of cancer that wasn’t diagnosed in time. Because there are plenty of folks “enjoying” long stints of unemployment here in Michigan who can’t afford COBRA. Which runs out in 18 months anyway.

    Actually, I don’t want the government to *directly provide* free coverage for everyone. I just want it to make sure that coverage is *available* for everyone. I’m all ears as to viable alternatives, which haven’t been proffered.

    I am also cognizant of the problems with the Pelosi bill apart from abortion, specifically the costs and regulatory problems which will likely result.

    However, at least it does provide coverage for those who need it. Which, alas, the Republican plan didn’t, despite the fact it contained some long-overdue reforms.

  • Dale,

    I’m sorry to hear about your friend. You should know, though, that cancer survival rates in the United States are higher than in Europe and Canada (where the government plays more of a role), and one of the reasons is that we actually do *more* screening than do other countries, and treatment comes faster once there is a diagnosis.

  • Exactly BA, which is why one may find varied reasons as a Catholic to be bothered by this.

  • BA:

    Yes, and I recall reading somewhere that overall cancer treatment in the US is the best in the world, by a wide margin. God knows I don’t want to see that lost with any reform.

  • Some cancers yes, some no. I seem to recall the evidence is mixed. But in general, there is nothing wrong with the quality of US healthcare. It’s just that a lot of people can’t get it, and it’s incredibly expensive.

  • MM,

    I think you’re missing BA’s point, which is that the facts suggest that even given the fact that number of people in the US do not have health insurance, people _still_ overall get cancer screenings more and survive cancer longer.

    Frankly, I think in this case it’s probably a wash since the pending legislation will probably only increase the number of insured nominally — you aren’t simply “given” health care, you need to pay for insurance, and paying a fine for not having insurance is cheaper than paying for insurance (even after subsidies), so those who can’t afford insurance now mostly still won’t have insurance. The main people helped by this will be people with lots of money who nonetheless don’t have employer insurance and can’t get individual insurance because of some pre-existing condition.

  • MM — since you’re here, you might want to correct your constant misinformation and lies about how often private insurance covers abortion. A quote from yesterday’s NY Times: “A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13 percent of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies.” Note, that’s billed, not paid.

    This refutes your dishonest attempts to claim that “most” people are contributing to private insurance policies that pay for abortion.

  • Pingback: A Tale of Two Votes « The American Catholic