With What Time Is Given

See http://www.lifenews.com/bio1982.html

While surfing other blogs, I recently came across this text, a speech by Rudy Giuliani at a NARAL convention.  This shows beyond a doubt Giuliani’s commitment to the Pro-Choice cause, and his commitment to nominating Pro-Choice judges.  Giuliani said:

“Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.   As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. . .”

Again, it is worth pointing out what Sanger said since Giuliani lauds her efforts in the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.  Sanger advocated abortion and birth control as a way to advance a eugenics campaign to eliminate “inferior races” and openly networked with the KKK to that end.  She was an anti-semite even before the holocaust and never recanted her beliefs.  She hated large Catholic families, having come from one herself, and believed abortion and birth control should be utilized to eliminate the “feeble-minded”.  She cautioned that in order to get the black community to accept abortion and birth control, it would be necessary to get black ministers to take the message to the community. 

Giuliani received over 4 times the amount of abortion blood money in his last campaign than Hilary Clinton did.  If he couldn’t beat her then, in a NY state race, what makes anyone think he is more “electable” on a national scale?  The guy hasn’t held elected office in years.  No social conservative can rally behind him, and in fact it is likely a Giuliani nomination would split the party as a Buchanan or the like would rise up as a 3rd party candidate.  I for one would be more likely to vote for whoever runs against him on the theory that it would be better to have a Democrat in 08 with a chance of a social conservative in 2012 than be stuck with no hope of a social conservative until 2016 and likely beyond should he be elected.  As the Pro-Life cause rises in America, his election would be a crippling blow. 

A recent article in Time magazine recognized the positive work of America’s 2300 pregnancy centers.  http://www.lifenews.com/nat2936.html  As the lifenews article observes “Unlike abortion facilities, these centers help pregnant women with baby and maternity resources, parenting classes, adoption, medical and educational needs, counseling, community referrals and support for women who had abortions they regret.”  These centers not only outnumber abortion clinics, but through the unheralded effort of tens of thousands of individuals across the country.  They help to save lives every day and build the culture of life by striving to make a place for every child who has come into the world and giving support to the mothers who an abortion clinic usually tries to rush into a bad decision.  These services are provided free of charge to the women who need them and continue long after birth.

As reported recently by CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/08/edwards.bloggers/index.html, John Edwards refused to disassociate with two bloggers hired by his Presidential campaign team who spew anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Catholic bigotry.  One blogger titled her post the “pope and fascists” and another ignorantly contended opposition to birth control forces women to bear more tithing Catholics.  Edwards response was that he believed these women deserved a fair shake, and without so much as remotely discussing their actual comments asserted that he spoke to them and that they did not mean to offend anyone’s private religious beliefs.

 Four conclusions and observations on this incident:

1.  These bloggers do NOT apologize for their comments or rescind them, nor does Edwards ask them to.  He in fact condones them by keeping them on paid staff to blog for him, thereby reaching out to people in the blogosphere who share exactly those beliefs.  Apparently he doesn’t feel this outrageous statements to be controversial.

2.  These bloggers typify the current bigoted, irrational, and mindless assertions that those who have religious beliefs should stay out of the public square.  We’ve all heard their ideology as they try to force it down our throats.  They posit that reason and religion are incompatible, that if someone with religious beliefs and conviction acts in the public square, whatever such a believer says should automatically be disregarded as irrational.  Why?  No reasons are offered, no rational analysis.  The secular gospel refrain is “don’t force your beliefs on others” which serves to deflect any discussion centered in reason.  To such an indoctrinated secularist, religion is to be a purely private matter, not impacting one’s complete person, and certainly not their beliefs in the realms of social justice and politics.  They do not stop at merely the unreasonable demand that people must have a secular basis for any action or belief guiding their actions, it seems they want to puritanically censor any belief held in part on religious conviction. 

In place of reasoned discussion of point and counterpoint, such bigoted secularists seek to force their own ideology on believers in a variety of ways.  Most pointedly, they do not feel the need to respect the right to life, limiting this right whenever it conflicts with a glorified autonomy that amounts not to liberty but to license.

3.  The comment that “tithing Catholics” are undesirable clearly reflects an anti-Catholic hatred and ignorance.  Catholics do not tithe, for the most part.  They apparently want less Catholics and the destruction of the institution which is the Church, apparently in their ignorant views maintained by tithing. 

4.  John Edwards’ failure to engage in the discussion of these outrageous statements and their underlying philosophies is a condonation of the bigotry.  Hedged and likely purposefully ambiguous disassociative statements such as he personally does not agree with them are not a condemnation of the bigotry and send the message that its really okay.  After all, he uses the same hedged language when supporting a “right to choose” that he personally doesn’t believe in abortion, but that the right exists all the same.

 Even worse than some of the other horrific presidential candidates, Edwards demonstrates a particular want of character and moral bankruptcy.

Some people adhere to the refrain that they are “personally opposed to abortion but don’t feel they have a right” to tell others whether to have an abortion.  This of course treats abortion as some sort of self-regarding behavior and ignores the fact that a human life is what is euphemistically termed as “terminated.”  Furthering the euphemism, it isn’t a baby being terminated or “my child” but “a fetus” or “the pregnancy.”  Anyone who describes what is involved in the abortion process or the pain it involves is termed “extremist” and opposition to the taking of human life is “imposing values” upon others.  

If you push further and counter these arguments by pointing out the biological truth that a human life is being taken, the next round of nonsensical assertions admits that abortion is bad, but that it is a necessary evil.  This theme is embedded in arguments such as “don’t base your vote on one issue” (unless it is any issue other than abortion in which case it is really fine, and ignoring abortion’s intrinsic connection to other issues such as a culture of life, protection of the family, contraception, IVF, cloning, euthanasia, etc.), “there’s nothing really that can be done at this time on that issue” (which is never true as battles are constantly being waged which demand a pro-life leadership in government), or resort to fabricated scenarios, ”what about back alley abortions?” (Bernard Nathanson and other early NARAL advocates admit they amplified the number of such abortions they had evidence of by over a hundred fold, yet such claims are still used in protests and in legalization efforts in Catholic nations) and amplified extreme exceptions such as “what about rape, incest, and the life of the mother” (less than 1% of all abortions).  Each resorts to a common underlying message:  Ok, so you can see the truth despite our best efforts to obfuscate the issue, but don’t act on it.

 It should not be surprising that some who feel abortion is a good thing call themselves pro-choice.  Some such groups of people see abortion as an effective type of birth control, or a means of population control, or an effective instrument to protect their valued lifestyle.  As opposed to those who buy into the above mentioned arguments that abortion is a necessary evil or that they have no right to tell others how to control their bodies, etc. (the pro-choicers) the pro-abortion group may be typified by those who actively discourage women from giving birth, call parenthood irresponsible, oppose parental involvement and consent, coerce women into abortion, and/or support forced abortion.  The UNFPA, or United Nations Population Fund, is dedicated to supporting forced abortion policies in countries such as China and North Korea and draws its funds from many nations, including Canada and many of the EU nations.  The United States does not currently fund forced abortions overseas, although it does fund abortion centers and programs overseas, including the infamous Mexico City policy.  Most Congressional Democrats support this funding for forced abortions.

One web site worth bookmarking if you have not seen it is http://www.all.org/stopp/resource.htm.  It would be well worth taking some time to see what Planned Parenthood is up to and how they are going after our children. 

There you can see both the historical context in which P.P., a heavyweight pro-abortion advocacy group, was founded, and what they are up to now.  Largely underriden by government funds, “STOPP”, who sponsors the above cited web page, is dedicated to stopping P.P. and stripping them of their government funds wherever possible by disseminating the truth of their activities.  What they reveal is an organization that sought to create a new “race” by weeding out the genetically unfit, a group that emerged while aligned with the KKK and other organizations, sharing in a denouncement of non-white races, a fierce anti-Catholicism and the writings of Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, which are incredibly racist.  PP still honors Sanger today, giving out awards in her name.  

Appalling also is their current repertoire of activities which demonstrates a concentrated effort to promote a casual sexual lifestyle to the young, dissociate loving commitment from procreation, dissociate sex from procreation, and even dissociate sex from loving commitment.  Planned Parenthood is incredibly active in promoting the use of contraception and so-called “safe sex”, denies people’s ability to sexually control themselves, encourages them not to try, and consistently targets college, high school and middle school aged young people.  They want contraception through the schools, (without parental knowledge or consent), contraception at concerts, government funded contraception and abortions, and even consistently oppose parental consent and parental notification.  Again, this agenda is largely profitable and largely underriden by tax dollars.  They consistently set up near high schools and universities and their government funded pregnancy counseling ends in abortion by a rate of several hundred abortions to every birth. 

 Take some time to learn about this cancer on our society and an organization that is committed to opposing them by visiting the above link.

Though its been several months since I last blogged, I am now back.  Though the 2008 Presidential election is still 21-22 months away, the race is already beginning to take form as potential candidates declare whether or not they are running, build the groundwork and conduct fundraising that determine how well their campaign may fare, and are already in some cases campaigning.  My head above shoulders favorite at this stage is dark horse Sam Brownback. 

Brownback has a lot going for him as well as a lot of obstacles to overcome.  Starting with the negatives:

1.  He is barely on the radar of most polls right now

2.  No senator has been elected president since the 60s, while many have lost, (Kerry, Gore, Dole, etc.) and he is a Senator

3.  Democrats, particularly pro-abortion Democrats seem to hate him more than any other GOP candidate currently in the field.

On the positive side, however, he has an ideology and consistently held platforms that may have broad appeal.  First, unlike Giuliani, Pataki, possibly still Romney, and even McCain, Brownback is strongly and truly Pro-Life.  He is a Catholic and his web site states, “honored and deeply moved by the opportunity to meet two giants of human history, the late Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. It is their same vision of human rights, freedom, and respect for life that illuminates Senator Brownback’s work on daily basis.”  See http://www.brownback.com/default.asp.  He has himself adopted a girl from China, where due to a forced abortion policy by their government, and a prevailing cultural preference for boys has caused massive selective gender motivated abortions against baby girls.  This gives him credibility, I believe, and would sit well with Asian Americans. 

He opposes embryonic stem cell research, which, by 2008, will hopefully be exposed for the political wedge issue and hoax that it is.  He is a brilliant orator and makes emotionally compelling and persuasive arguments.  He has also worked across party lines to sponsor legislation combatting human trafficking, and has a consistent life ethic that spans to show he truly values human dignity and human life at all stages, and in all places.  To laundry list his other stances, which although I don’t agree with in toto, are generally good:

1.  He supports Social Security but opposes the death tax

2.  Wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning, wants to prohibit protests at veterans’ funerals

3.  Supports welcoming Hispanics who have immigrated to America

4.  Advocates American involvement in ending the Darfur genocide

5.  Supports the 2nd Amendment

6.  Is a favorite of the FFA, and was himself a former national level FFA officer (Future Farmers of America is a powerful coalition in many midwestern states)

7.  Supports lowering taxes, free enterprise, small business creation and incentives, and cutting wasteful government spending.  His web site states, “The American system of free enterprise and free markets has created more wealth for all members of our society than any economic system in human history. The verdict of history is clear: socialism has failed mankind and capitalism has created a far more just system for both rich and poor alike.”  In this respect he has also described himself as a Ronald Reagan mold conservative.

8.  Supports the nomination of strict constructionists to the bench, that is, judges who exercise “judicial restraint” and faithfully adhere to interpreting the Constitution and enacted laws, not grafting their own interpretation and ideology upon the Constitution or positive law.  He has been arguably the strongest member to this end on the Senate Judiciary Committee and strongly supported Alito and Roberts.

9.  Opposes gay marriage.

10.  Supports simplification of the tax code, a flat tax, and a BRAC-like commission for the elimination of wasteful / failing federal programs.  (BRAC is the Base Closing and Realignment Commission, not sure how that equals “BRAC”, but anyway, it is a commission that reviews the need for military bases and periodically makes recommendations as to which ones should be closed.  Congress usually follows these recommendations).

 Again, I don’t support all of his stances, but I endorse him because he is solid on what matters, and seems to be the “consistent life ethic candidate” and candidate most concerned with promoting human dignity. 

In the wake of Republicans losing both the House and Senate, and 6 governorships, here’s my two cents of political analysis:

 1.  THE FUTURE OF THE CONGRESS.  The Democrats will likely control both houses for at least the next six years.  They picked up enough seats in the House where, even if the GOP chips away with a series of successful elections, the Democrats have a buffer before they would lose control.  Not only that, but with the Dems now controlling a majority of governorships (28), including 6 new ones, they will have power to redistrict states to increase their advantage even further.  In the Senate, the Democrats gains this year, while only giving them a 51 seat majority, are truly remarkable because they won 24 out of 33 seats, (including Lieberman and Sanders who are Democrat voting and caucusing independents).  The next two Senate cycles will feature 40 GOP seats up for challenge and only 27 Dem seats up for challenge, which means for the GOP to regain control, they would need to win 60% of the Senate races after only winning 27%. 

2.  THE REASONS THE DEMS WON.  In short, a perfect storm.  The top reason has to be the war in Iraq which has become incredibly unpopular.  Not only does a substantial majority now “oppose the war” but they are far more likely to vote on the war in Iraq than those who are not upset about the fact we are in Iraq.  The war has also dominated news coverage so consistently that what might have been winning GOP issues, including recent record highs in the stock market, the lowest unemployment levels since 9/11 and lower than the average in the Clinton years, a much stronger job creation record, etc. went virtually unmentioned.  Regarding gay marriage, while huge majorities continue to ban gay marriage in one state after another, including liberal states, (except Massachussetts), the issue is a loser for the younger generation.  The Dems have done a better job of palying up the gay marriage issue to younger voters than the GOP has done in playing it to the older voters.  Bush’s low poll numbers, after the war in Iraq, is next best explained by his efforts to tackle Social Security reform, a political black hole from which his approval numbers never really recovered.  The Democratic base was primarily driven by the labor movement, where union members and union households, despite being at an all time low in terms of percentage of the workforce, continue to constitute a majority of the votes going for the Democratic party and the ground efforts for get out the vote and campaign volunteers. 

In several states, embryonic stem cell research was an issue, but despite disproportionate media coverage, individuals whose top one or two reasons for voting was the embryonic stem cell research issue broke overwhelmingly for the GOP.  The Dems keep it on the agenda because they receive so much funding from the abortionist movement and what popularity the measure has had is due nearly entirely to misinformation campaigns about the false hope of promise in embryonic stem cells.  It is worth repeating again, that ZERO cures and effective treatments have ever been developed from embryonic stem cell research, the funding is taking away from proven, non-embryonic stem cell research that actually has helped the people with the diseases the embryonic stem-cell proponents pretend to care about, and the Dems are planning to spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars on the research.  The real end game behind this research, I believe, is to marginalize Pro-Lifers who they know will oppose this research on the ground that it very clearly, scientifically involves the destruction of human life.

The third most influential issue after Iraq and Social Security was the series of scandals rocking the GOP.  The Abramoff scandal is nearly single-handedly responsible for the victory of now Senator Tester over GOP Senator Burns, and the downfall of Mike DeWine in Ohio.  While many Democrats took money from Abramoff as well, the Dems effectively convinced the public that this was a GOP corruption.  The Foley scandal in Florida cost the GOP what had been a safe House seat and drew national attention. 

3.  THE IMPACT ON 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.  In short, it is too early to tell, but the Dems control of the governorships, and the prevailing political winds favor the Democrats.  If the war in Iraq is still on the political horizon it will continue to devastate the GOP at the polls.  It is also politically suicidal at this point for the GOP to address Social Security again.  I believe a Clinton-Obama ticket will shape up for the Dems and a McCain-?? ticket for the GOP where national security, health care, fiscal responsibility, and value issues will dominate the election.

 4.  THE IMPACT ON ABORTION.  As voters went to the polls, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the partial birth abortion ban.  The ban will likely be held Constitutional, crystallizing the victories of Pro-Lifers in ‘04, ‘02, and ‘00, as well as the Alito and Roberts confirmation votes.  This will save thousands of lives, at least, every year.  At the same time, rumors of Justice Stevens’ failing health and possible retirement opens the question of whether a 49 vote minority GOP can put a Pro-Life, 5th, Roe-overturning vote on the Court.  Bush will likely put up another Pro-Life vote, but the Dems will control the judiciary committee and will likely try to defeat every nominee there who has a hint of a Pro-Life track record. 

It is worth noting though, that the House, where the Dems have a larger majority, has zero impact on the Supreme Court selection or confirmation.  Also of the 6 seats the GOP lost to the Dems in the Senate, one was a Pro-Life vote to another Pro-Life vote, (Santorum to Casey in PA), and another was a Pro-Choice vote to a Pro-Choice vote (Chafee to Whitehouse in RI).  It wil be an uphill but necessary battle for the Pro-Life movement to win.  It is likely Bush will nominate Janice Rogers Brown to be the 1st black female on the Supreme Court, and much will depend on her confirmation process.  If, by a long shot, Allen somehow manages to win through a recount in VA, the GOP will regain control of the Senate, and with Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, the GOP would be able to push through a Bush nominee.  The dark and tragic reality of the situation, however, is this:  that by a margin of a fraction of a percent, the GOP lost a race in VA they needed to win, and the probable result, without a heroic Pro-Life effort, is that tens of millions of more lives will be lost through abortion before we get another chance to put a 5th vote on the court.  Assuming the Dems win the White House in 08, the oldest votes on the court, including Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, can retire and be replaced by younger pro-abortion justices who can empower the tragedy of abortion decades into the future. 

Regarding the defeat of the abortion ban in South Dakota, two things are worth mentioning.  One, is that until a few weeks before the election, the ban had a huge margin of support that was eroded by intentionally misleading ad campaigns by the abortionists, who were far more well-funded.  Second, though Pro-Lifers were outfunded, they drew more funding contributions from within the state than the abortionists, and South Dakota, by all polls remains a Pro-Life state.  It does highlight though the long road of defeating abortion in the states after we get the constitutional Supreme Court majority.  Every state victory though will save thousands to millions of lives, depending on the state.

Often called the third rail of American politics, social security has been honored as a sacrosanct pillar of our social structure.  We want to believe that when we retire, we will be taken care of, that someone who works long and hard all their life has a reward at the end of the tunnel.  In the past couple of years, President Bush and the GOP have been annihilated around the country in taking on social security as they have tried to partially privatize it.  If they had been successful, medicare would have been next.  These two programs alone account for approximately 10-15% of our total national budget and the percentage goes up every year.  At the very least, social security needs to be reformed.

When social security was started, it was a brilliant pyramid scheme where, due to shorter lifespans, relatively higher birthrates, and a higher retirement age, each individual drawing social security was supported by fifty or so workers paying into the system.  Now, due to low birth rates, (impacted by the era of abortion and contraception), better medicine, etc. there are only 2-3 workers per social security drawee.  The system is not taking in as much money as it was relative to what it pays out and within ten years it will be losing money.  Although politicians argue over the exact date of its collapse, some Generation X-ers, (and perhaps even some baby boomers), and certainly our children cannot expect the system to persevere for us.  We are paying into a system that will not be there for us.  If there is any merit or good in having such a system, reform is needed.

 The second major problem with social security is how it is collected.  It is a flat tax, up to a point, and then regressive.  Most Americans believe in the idea of progressive taxation, that is, higher tax brackets pay a higher percentage of tax on their earnings and lower income households pay a lower percentage.  Regressive, by contrast, would be where lower income families pay a higher percentage of their earnings and the well-to-do get a tax break.  Social security is collected at a flat percentage of your income, independent of what you pay for regular taxes.  The deductions and credits you qualify for do not apply to the social security tax.  Once you hit roughly $90,000 in income, you do not pay a dime of social security taxes, however, for money earned above the threshhold.  Consequently, a millionaire will pay at least 100 times less of a percentage of his/her earnings as somebody below the poverty line.  If you are rich enough to cross that 90,000 and change threshhold, you get a huge tax break just because you have more money. 

 The third major problem is that social security is not kept in a separate account.  It goes into the general treasury.  Although you will see a separate line on your taxes for the social security tax it goes to the same federal treasury.  There is no account growing interest for your retirement.  There is not even an account for redistribution to the elderly. 

 The fourth major problem is with how it is paid out.  A billionaire like Bill Gates could draw more money from social security upon retirement than a poor retired blue collar worker.  This is true despite the fact that Bill Gates will not have paid social security taxes beyond the first 90K of his income in any given year and the blue collar worker will have paid a higher percentage of his/her income into social security.

The fifth major problem is the amount that is paid out doesn’t cover the bills.  The initial idea of social security was to provide financial security in retirement.  Now social security, on average, covers only 40 some percent of the cost of living in retirement. 

I am not in favor of abolishing social security altogether, such a step would be far too drastic and take a partial safety net out from under those who depend on it.  I agree that promises to seniors has to be kept because our government, our society, has made that commitment.  People have counted on it and cannot be blindsided by a sudden shift in policy.  But the time is now to address these problems and start taking steps to reform a failing program that is unjustly operated.  To the merits of partial privatization, I would agree with its proponents that in the event the system fails, people being allowed to invest their own money would aid them come retirement.  Investing in a 401(k) like retirement program is better than money just sitting in the bank, on average, and certainly better than money paid in that never even earns a cent of interest.  The danger, opponents say, is that partial privatization will lead to full privatization and leave poor investors without a safety net.  While this concern is legitimate, it is hard to swallow the simultaneous refusal to address reform of the program from some of the same representatives.  Also, through engaging the process of reform, there are many potential ways social security could be saved, both as an institution for our retirees and as a justly executed social program. 

Last, this issue should not be politicized.  Given its enormous and growing impact on the federal budget, and given the current budget crisis, it is of paramount importance that the issue be addressed effectively or else, sooner or later, we all lose.

Its been a while since my last post.  Instead of a social commentary, this one is a meditation, borrowed nearly entirely from different quotes from different people.

Beauty is the work of the divine artist in creation all around us, beauty is in God’s invitation at each moment of our lives to engage His invitation to love and in the enthusiasm within our hearts for the passions God gives us to do good.  Beauty is in developing our sense of wonder, especially wonder and awe at the tremendous dignity and worth of every single human being.  Beauty is both what is around us and how we process it.

Success is developing our sense of beauty.  Success is in ever expanding our vision of love and in challenging ourselves to be our best, especially challenging our own habits that are not our best.  Success is in being true to ourselves, is found in the love we receive from a child, in perseverance through adversity.  Success is in making the world a better place, especially for those we regularly interact with.  Success is in only judging others by the good that they do.  Success is in not judging ourselves poorly without accepting God’s forgiveness nor well without gratitude for His grace.