Here are two simple things that you can do to fight the Freedom of Choice Act:
1) go to FightFOCA.com and sign the petition. Get the facts.
2) Get a car window crayon and simply write FightFOCA.com on your back window.
Be prepared to explain FOCA and how it doesn’t seek to serve men, women or children, but veils its real agenda of massive profits for the abortion industry–profits that are financed by the blood of mothers and children. They perpetuate their deception with anesthetic language such as “freedom” and “choice”. Authentic freedom doesn’t exist at the expense of another. We tried slavery already; thank God that grave evil was recognized for what it was, and that it was overturned due to the courage of those who sought to stand up and fight for the truth.
Keep the Change. I’m for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In all of my life, I’ve never seen our nation split like it was this time around; there was a lot at stake. The unborn, the economy, foreign policy…you know the deal. A lot of discernment, a lot of responsibility.
I deliberately waited a few days to write about the outcome. I’m a crock pot of a thinker, not a microwave, and it takes me time to process. I was initially afraid, initially worried, initially a little angry; the division of Catholics was (and is) personally very painful for me, like I know it is for a lot of people.
But God has given me a tremendous grace and insight. It is not Catholic to be afraid (“the Lord is not the spirit of fear”), nor is it Catholic to worry, as it robs us of our trust in God. There is such a thing as righteous anger, though…I don’t know if I had a righteous anger or a prideful one; I need to pray on that some more and listen for God’s voice to guide me.
What hit me last night as I was driving home, is that no matter the result, this is God’s America, God’s election, God’s president-elect, God’s ways and God’s thoughts in action. Brothers and Sisters! He either ordained or allowed the election of Barack Obama. In that truth alone, we have complete confidence to continue forward in faith.
This does not mean that I give the President-elect any sort of pass whatsoever on the grave evils that he endorses, such as the Freedom of Choice Act. Please, do not misunderstand me. What I am saying, however, is that as Catholics, we are called by God to love Barack Obama, child of God, with the genuine Light of Christ in our eyes and in our hearts. “Love thy enemies”. Scripture doesn’t say “tolerate thy enemies,” it says “love”. What does it mean to love? Padre Pio rightly observed that “the proof of love is to suffer for the one you love.” As Christ hung on the Cross, nails piercing His hands and feet, dying, He loved both of the men to either side of Him; one chose to respond to that love, the other scorned and rejected it. By the grace of God, I choose to love.
It is not enough to pray novenas and rosaries for our future 44th President to change his mind on life issues. We must never accept any grave evil that he promotes, but we must anchor our prayers in the genuine love of God for our fellow man, for the good of this man and our nation herself.
It is not Catholic to hate; it is the very foundation of our Catholic identity to love our enemies as Christ does. It’s at this point that we find ourselves at the fork in the road: one path is wide and easy, while the other is rocky, narrow and uncertain, but bathed in love. What path will each of us choose? The one lined with prayers based in anger, sorrow, fear and mistrust, or prayers of genuine faithful love and hope?
St. Dismas, pray for us.
In 1931, the US economy was on the rebound from hard times–very similar to what we’re in now. In 1932, President Hoover raised taxes on those who made $100,000 or more, which boomeranged any rebound and sunk us into the Great Depression.
Why the history lesson? Because history repeats itself.
Going to the inflation calculator at WestEgg.com:
Hoover’s $100,000 in 1932 = $1,500,000 in 2007.
Obama’s $200,000 in 2007 = $15,200 in 1932.
Barack Obama’s promise to raise taxes on only those earning $200,000 or more is the equivalent of Herbert Hoover raising taxes on people who earned $15,000 in 1932. That is, if you can believe Obama’s slippery numbers.
Democratic VP candidate Senator Joe Biden proclaimed that Obama’s taxable middle class is now at $150,000. But wait–New Mexico Governor and Obama surrogate Bill Richardson went on record saying that Obama’s middle class is actually $120,000. WestEgg calculates $120,000 today to be the same as $9100 in 1932. Did Hoover dare to dip that low to squeeze the middle class? This is a Democratic tax limbo: how low will the middle class go? Do you really want to break your back to find out?
This says nothing of Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on capital gains, meaning any profits that people make from stock market investments. He’s going to raise capital gains from the current 15% to as high as 30%. If you are lucky enough to make $1,000 in the market, your taxes would go from $150 to as high as $300.
Now add “free” health care to the mix. We all know from experience that there are no free lunches (thank you Jim Cannon, WVC)…how exactly is Obama going to finance the free?
History teaches us that when the economy is on shaky ground, the last thing you do is raise taxes on anybody. Barack Obama is trying hard to sell the idea of a tax increase for 5% of Americans alongside of $1 Trillion in new spending. How can he raise taxes on only 5% when the definition of the middle class keeps falling? Look at history, then go ahead and do the math.
If Obama wins on Tuesday, and insists on spreading your family’s wealth via reckless tax increases and a Fantasy Island of a spending package, then you better stock your pantry and buckle up for Barack Obama’s Great Depression of 2009.
Go Father West! Thank you for all the time and effort you put into your post.
Not that any Catholic need more reasons than one…
The federal lawsuit filed by attorney Philip J. Berg has been dismissed by Philadelphia judge Surrick. Berg is taking his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please pray that God’s will be done in this election.
Is redistribution of wealth the “change we need”? Is this the “change you can believe in?” Obama sure thinks so. What matters on November 4th is, what do you think?
Senator Obama, during a interview in 2001 (quote from U.S. News):
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical; it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution…. One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that. You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
I was already concerned about the information on this site.
However, by moving to block discovery vs. answering specific claims in Attorney Philip J. Berg’s Federal lawsuit within the prescribed 30-day window, Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention legally admit to the claims presented in the suit. Among them? Senator Obama was born in Kenya, and is not eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Now it remains to see how Obama and the DNC will spin this. I would have serious trouble believing that a Harvard Law Grad didn’t know about the 30 day rule for responding to claims in a federal lawsuit. He was ACORN’s attorney, for pete’s sake. Is he going to tell us that he wasn’t aware of the law? Or that his ailing Grandma (please pray for her) had him distracted to the point of not responding to the lawsuit? What the DNC’s excuse? As a side note: look for the “official” document from the State of Hawaii to be released on or after Obama’s return from visiting his Grandmother in…Hawaii.
My heart is heavy today; this is not a good day for Democracy. I’d much rather have an honest debate of the issues–not have to wade through the scandal of such a foundational deception of the good people of our nation.