“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. … Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” – James Madison¹

My Political Views I am a right social moderate. Right: 4.07, Libertarian: 0.03 <br/> Political Spectrum Quiz

“Catholic teaching on subsidiarity and the American tradition of federalism – to say nothing of simple realism about what happens when large state bureaucracies get extensive power – should here join hands in proper wariness about the unintended consequences of efforts to do good.” – Robert Royal¹

The National Catholic Register provides the scientific facts behind the Pope’s recent statement that there is a risk of increasing the problem of AIDS in Africa by distributing condoms.¹ This article provides documentation to some of the things I had considered myself when I have found myself defending the Church’s position, as well as bringing up a few things I had not thought of. The long and short of it is, unsurprisingly, that the available empirical research demonstrates that, for one reason or another, you simply cannot remove the risk from “casual sex.” Only “partner reduction” or better yet “abstinence or being mutually faithful with an uninfected partner are the most effective ways of avoiding infection.”²

The Wall Street Journal’s Mr. Stuart Varney presents a chilling thought in an alleging that the current administration is refusing to allow an unnamed bank to return funds loaned to it.¹ The creditability of the article is reduced by the failure to name the bank or the source. Still, his logic is hard to deny; President Obama is certainly a socialist. It is a very scary thought, and I can but pray that it is not true.

This¹ comes only a week or so after I finished the book, Lord of the World² that it compares President Obama to. The author writes reflecting much the same line of thought that I had as I wrote it.

Other than the fact that the “planes” in the book flap wings, and the references to esperanto, the book is rather eerie when you think about it having been written in 1906 or so.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” – Alexander Tyler (A Scottish professor)¹

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.¹

On numerous occasions, I have heard Democrats mock President Bush’s speaking ability. Clearly, the man is not the world’s greatest public speaker. I do not know if he has an actual speech impediment or if he just does not care about the way he sounds, or if some mis-guided analyst focus-grouped things and came up with the idea that he should not worry about the way he sounds. It really does not matter.

What is truly bizarre though is that Democrats think they can dismiss his ideas, policies, and even measure his intelligence from this. I am not sure when medical science proved that everyone who mispronounces words and occasionally stutters is mentally deficient, but I have apparently missed the report.

I am further not sure when such a blatant ad hominem attack became an acceptable way to refute someone’s ideas. For the record, if you lower yourself to such an attack, you have, in my eyes, demonstrated that you must have nothing meaningful to say against the ideas he presents, stands for, and works to achieve. You must be so utterly blown away that you cannot even begin to defend your own position. You posit that he is right, and that you are wrong, but you just do not care.

That is why I have not really mentioned it ever, though I disagree with the man on immigration, education, and a number of other issues. I think that I can hold my own, and that my ideas are worth considering, are in fact better. I do not need to attack the man and hope that doing so causes people to forget his ideas.

Do you really think our public schools are doing a good job? Keep in mind that most of the teacher’s union dollars go to the Democratic party.

Do you really want to see our medical system go the way of Canada or the UK? Keep in mind that 1/4 children in the UK cannot see a dentist because the nationalized health care there is floundering. Or that a far greater percentage of those who have strokes there die than here, because they cannot get the drugs that would save their lives. Or a host of other examples.

I am all for handling social issues. I just do not think that the democratic party’s notions of nationalizing everything will by any stretch of the imagination help. It is a waste of money, and worse, gets in the way of really solving problems.

But it is beyond that. Both Democratic candidates are 100% in favor of killing babies. This is not hyperbole, it is not fiction. Both will work to expand funding for abortion, help ensure that attempts to restrict it are impossible. Both will work to export our insanity to other countries such as poor African nations. Both will make it harder to make people aware of the reality of the choice they are making – to kill their unborn baby.

HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR THAT‽

I simply cannot understand how you can worry about health care or education and sleep nights knowing that you have, with your vote, helped ensure that 1.37 Million¹ babies will be killed next year.

I am sorry that having that child might impact that mother. It might reduce her standard of living, remind her of things in her past, change her career plans, or whatever else. BUT THAT CHILD DESERVES TO LIVE. Keep that in mind when you proclaim yourself pro-choice, that the child has none.

And yes, he or she is a child. He or she is not a mass of tissue. We can keep him or her alive without the mother for months before natural birth. He or she has a soul and a life of his or her own, one that is just as important, but a whole lot more defenseless, than that of the mother whose “rights” you are so passionately defending.

Worse though, I think, is if you somehow think that something can be more important than this. The idea of claiming to be pro-life, but voting democratic sickens me with the thought of that much hypocrisy.