Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama so fanatical about abortion, supports infanticide

Well, this was rather alarming...

Nurse says Obama supports infanticide

Barack Obama, presidential candidate

.- A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

“Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.”

“So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.”

In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama’s initial response, as stated in USA Today was “that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.” He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister.

Stanek summarized Obama’s second response saying that “Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to ‘explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.’”

“I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash,” she told WorldNetDaily.

Yet, Stanek pointed out that religion was never part of the abortion ban debate. “I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.”

Stanek concluded by asking Obama, why do “you think Jesus should vote for you?”

An unholy platform

I sometimes get involved in political discussions with those who have great disdain for how President George W. Bush has presided over our nation, showing a general dislike for the conduct of Republican politicians in particular. They then go on to tell me their opinion on many things, ranging from how best to settle the war in Iraq to the best policies regarding economics. They then dig in, preparing for a rebuttal of some sort, expecting me to try to defend President Bush and the Republican Party...I don't...which seems to only irritate them.

Instead, I state my opinion that our politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, are incompetent at leading our nation. This tends to diffuse the usual partisan discussions made ever more repetitive by 24-hour news programs. I then explain that I have read the Republican Party Platform and the Democratic Party Platform and ask them if they have done the same. Almost without exception, the answer is no. I then recommend they do.

In the final analysis, I don't find anything in the Republican Party Platform that I fundamentally disagree with. It seems to be that it is incompetence in execution that harms the Republican Party, not the ideas put forth in their platform. If they were more competent, they would be able to better enact the ideas affirmed in their party platform. If the Republican Party were more competent in executing there ideas, then the nation would benefit.

I also find that Democrats are just as incompetent as Republicans. The fundamental difference seems to be in what they say in each of their official party platforms. The Democratic Party Platform contains ideas which are not just imprudent, but are unholy. Consequently, the incompetence of Democrats is a blessing to this nation, since if they were more competent, then the very unholy ideas they espouse in the Democratic Party Platform would have an ever greater stranglehold on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our great nation, which would lead to its ruin.

For instance, one of the unholy goals of the Democratic party include how they "stand proudly for a woman's right to choose [abortion], consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right." The Democratic Party has firmly allied themselves with abortion and Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation. Democratic Senator Barak Obama in July of 2007 stated in a speech to Planned Parenthood, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

I cannot yield my vote to a person or party so closely allied to such an unholy moral principle. My conscience and the cries of over a million aborted infants per year won't allow it. I have no particular loyalty to the Republican Party. However, the unholy platform of the Democratic Party serves only to eliminate them from consideration. I pray that some day the compassion of the Democratic Party extends to the most vulnerable members of our society: unborn children. I pray also that our nation's laws are changed so that they once again protect the lives of unborn children.

While the incompetence of Republicans is something to admonish as having surely harmed this great nation of ours, the incompetence of Democrats can only be seen as a great blessing, as they espouse an unholy platform which, if successful, can only lead to increased sinfulness.

You can read the 2004 Democratic and Republican Party Platforms here (when the 2008 platforms become available, I will provide links to those):

2004 Democratic Party Platform
2004 Republican Party Platform

"Choose this day whom you will for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Josh 24:15)

God bless,


Saturday, February 16, 2008

"Church shopping" because of our broken parish?

I read an article from America magazine called "Our Broken Parish" (by "A Parishioner", Feb. 11, 2008). In it the author states:
In big cities Catholics can parish-shop, looking for a Catholic community that is a good fit for them. Living in a small town, however, can be a difficult proposition for a Catholic. In our town, newcomers can church-shop among the Christian houses of worship, of which there are many. But Catholics have only one choice: our parish. When my husband and I moved here over 20 years ago, that fact made us a bit nervous. We had come from a metropolitan area, where there was a Catholic church every few miles and where we parish-shopped. When we really liked the homilies of a priest who worked at the parish in the next suburb over, we got permission to switch our affiliation to that parish, which was a 10-minute drive rather than a two-minute drive from our house. In our new small-town life, the next closest Catholic parish was 50 miles away....we are now contemplating making that 50-mile-each-way weekly commute to another parish.

Why? Our parish has become for us a place of anger and artifice, of division and dysfunction.... The origin of our crisis may be obvious by now: we have a new pastor. The new pastor has brought new priorities with which we do not agree. He also believes that the parishioners are the sheep and he is the shepherd, which translates to: My way or the highway. He enjoys all the power, without the intuition or skill of leadership....
This whole notion of "parish shopping" is rather strange to me. I see the parish as the extended family God has given to me. Searching for another "parish" family seems as bizarre to me as searching for another mother. If I find the mother I have to be rather difficult to live with, can I just go "mother shopping?"

We all have crazy uncles in our families which we would just as soon hide in the attic and never relate with because of the suffering that it may bring. However, God gave us the good uncles as well as the crazy ones so that we may love them both. How easy it would be to only love the lovable? However, is that really a cross worth bearing, loving only the lovable? Or is there something more difficult planned for us in this life, perhaps something as difficult as loving someone who we think is a "bad pastor?"

Perhaps the pastor is incompetent. If so, we are called to manifest our opinion for the good of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 37), but to do so charitably. On the other hand, perhaps those being pastored are stubbornly opposed to a different leadership style, not liking the new personality thrust into their midst as a result of the mind and will of the Bishop who appointed him.

Lousy pastors deserve obedience just as much as good pastors--maybe even more so. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the only reason we can licitly disobey our pastor is when he commands something contrary to higher authority, or when he command something outside his scope of authority. Excepting these two reasons, we are called to give "fraternal correction" while always submitting to our lawful superiors. This may seem strange to a "church shopping" mentality, but it is Catholic ecclesiology nonetheless.

The pastor may certainly be "off course," objectively speaking, as the "captain" of the Ark of Salvation that is the local parish. However, is it my competence to steer the ship better than he? I don't think so. It is likely that the captain has a better grasp than I as to where he is taking us, and it may only seem to me to be off course, when in truth, it's exactly where the Holy Spirit is telling him to go. I'm of the same mind as St. Catherine of Sienna and will leave it to God to do the course corrections. I humbly accept my place among the governed within the Church, not among those that govern.

And when at times, I get a big 'ole chip on my shoulder, and I think I know better than my pastor or deacon, or my bishop or pope, I'm reminded of Heb 13:17, which states: "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you."

The article from America magazine did nothing but remind me of the following, written by Thomas a' Kempis in his famous text, The Imitation of Christ:


IT IS a very great thing to obey, to live under a superior and not to be one's own master, for it is much safer to be subject than it is to command. Many live in obedience more from necessity than from love. Such become discontented and dejected on the slightest pretext; they will never gain peace of mind unless they subject themselves wholeheartedly for the love of God.

Go where you may, you will find no rest except in humble obedience to the rule of authority. Dreams of happiness expected from change and different places have deceived many.

Everyone, it is true, wishes to do as he pleases and is attracted to those who agree with him. But if God be among us, we must at times give up our opinions for the blessings of peace.

Furthermore, who is so wise that he can have full knowledge of everything? Do not trust too much in your own opinions, but be willing to listen to those of others. If, though your own be good, you accept another's opinion for love of God, you will gain much more merit; for I have often heard that it is safer to listen to advice and take it than to give it. It may happen, too, that while one's own opinion may be good, refusal to agree with others when reason and occasion demand it, is a sign of pride and obstinacy."


God bless,