What an American Hero!
On April 26, 2013 President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to deliver a speech to Planned Parenthood. He ended his address to the largest abortion provider in the U.S. by saying, “God bless you.”
In 1942 Margaret Sanger changed the name of her Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In 1948 the Federation became the International Planned Parenthood for the goal was now no longer simply the unborn babies in Brooklyn but indeed throughout the Whole World. To accomplish this mission the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau financed the development of the birth control pill. Furthermore to accomplish this worldwide mission, Sanger needed the involvement of the United States Government and other Governments, the United Nations and a massive conversion of the populace. How did this come about? Who helped her? Click here to read more.
Apr 16, 2013 (CNA/EWTN News)
“I was…fond of Benedict because he was truly humble man,” Charles Coulombe, author of “The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI,” told CNA April 15.
“He was kind of shy and retiring, but he was willing to re-invigorate the trappings of the papacy, not for his own benefit, but for that of the office. And that’s true humility.”
The book, released in March, discusses the Church and the office of the papacy, gives a biographical sketch of Benedict’s life, and addresses the reforms which the Pope undertook during his pontificate.
“It’s a good, quick introduction to both the Church and the papacy for those who don’t know anything about it, and it will be useful for those trying to figure out the areas in which (Pope Francis’) papacy will be facing challenges,” he said.
The Los Angeles, Calif.-based author and historian said he was inspired to write it because he considered Benedict to have been “the best Pope I’ve lived under.”
Coulombe is most fond of Benedict because his work seemed particularly to “reflect what people in parishes and dioceses were living through in their Catholic lives.”
While acknowledging that the other Popes, since Paul VI, have had their own strengths and accomplishments, Coulombe says that Benedict’s care for such issues as the appointment of bishops were what “really concretely affects the life of the individual Catholic at the end of the day.”
“Benedict seems to understand that if you’re a believing Catholic, it’s been pretty tough.”
Coulombe described living through a period dominated by the “hermeneutic of rupture” – a view that sees a fundamental break between the Church as it existed before and after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, and of which Benedict spoke of in his first Christmas address to the Roman Curia
He said that the Bishop Emeritus of Rome was the “first authoritative individual” to address that problem “in which the average Catholic lives.”
Coulombe’s new work, released last month, is available in several e-book formats from Diversion Books for $4.99.
“The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population. “
The Ambitions of Bill and Melinda Gates: Controlling Population and Public Education
by Anne Hendershott - March25, 2013
Continuing their commitment to controlling global population growth through artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion initiatives, Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, a self-described “practicing” Catholic, are now attempting to control the curriculum of the nation’s public schools. Subsidizing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum. This, on top of the tens of millions they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.
In a column published in January, political commentator Michelle Malkin calls the Common Core a “stealthy federal takeover of school curriculum and standards across the country.” And, she maintains that the Common Core’s “dubious college and career read standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.
The Gates Foundation: Buying Control
For nearly two decades, the Gates Foundation has been generous in providing aid to more than 100 countries—often coupled with family planning opportunities. Such aid is often framed as a way to foster economic growth. In an article in American Thinker, Andressen Blom and James Bell wrote that Melinda Gates made that connection explicit in a speech at a population gathering that “government leaders are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost effective way to foster economic growth.”
Gates maintains that improvements in health care—including an expansion of the administration of vaccinations—will encourage families to reduce the number of children they desire to have. And, in an ongoing attempt to expand the types of birth control, Gates has spent millions of dollars on research and development. According to Christian Voice, a few years ago the Gates Foundation awarded a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to develop a new type of ultrasound described as a “non-invasive form of birth control for men” which would make a man infertile for up to six months.
Such strategies have been effective. In fact, the Gates Foundation has been so successful in their family planning initiatives that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) awarded their annual Population Award in 2010 to the Foundation. According to a June 15, 2010 article in Mercator.net, at the awards ceremony, UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid cited the Gates Foundation as a “leader in the fields of global health and global development, particularly in promoting excellence in population assistance, including through the design of innovative, integrated solutions in the areas of reproductive health, family planning, and maternal and neonatal health.” The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a previous winner of the United Nations Population Fund’s Annual Award.
It is easy to understand why the United Nations Population Fund—a fund which Steven Mosher, the President of the Population Research Institute has exposed as being a direct participant in China’s coercive one-child policy—honored Gates with their prestigious Population Fund award since the Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to “family-planning” groups including the United Nations Population Fund itself; CARE International—an organization which is lobbying for legalized abortion in several African nations; Save the Children—a major promoter of the population control agenda, the World Health Organization—an organization that forcibly sterilized thousands of women in the 1990s under the pretence of providing tetanus vaccination services in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines; and of course, the major abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Bill and Melinda Gates truly believe that population control is key to the future. Plans are already in place to track births and vaccinations through cell phone technology to register every birth on the planet. Gates claims that the GPS technology would enable officials to track and “remind” parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines. Maintaining that vaccination is key to reducing population growth, Gates predicts that if child mortality can be reduced, parents will have fewer children, following the example of the urbanized West where birth rates have dropped to below replacement levels: “The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have fewer children.” For Gates, “there is no such thing as a healthy, high population growth country. If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth… As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums…It’s a very interesting problem.”
More than a decade ago, on May 17, 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had purchased shares in nine of the largest pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million. Acquiring shares in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson Wyeth, Abbott Labs, and others, the Gates Foundation continues a financial interest in common with the makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and contraceptives. But, the commitment to global population control goes well beyond financial interests. It is likely that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will continue its commitment to global population control, and now, curriculum creation in the nation’s schools because they truly believe that they know better than anyone else how we all should live.
A Product of Poor Catholic Education
According to the National Catholic Register, Melinda Gates represents herself in the media as a practicing Catholic who has a great uncle who was a Jesuit priest and a great aunt who was an Ursuline nun who taught her to read. She graduated from Ursuline Academy in Dallas, where she claims to have learned “incredible social justice.” And, this may indeed be where the problem begins. For so many Catholics, social justice has been so broadly defined that it now includes giving women access to reproductive rights—including the right to abortion—so that they can play an equal role in contributing to the workplace and the economy. In an article entitled “Why Birth Control is Still a Big Idea” published in Foreign Policy in December, 2012, Melinda Gates writes:
Contraceptives unlock one of the most dormant but potentially powerful assets in development: women as decision makers. When women have the power to make choices about their families, they tend to decide precisely what demographers, economists, and development experts recommend.
Most recently, in a January 2, 2013 article published on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website entitled “Profiles in Courage: Philippines Passes Reproductive Health Bill,” the article congratulates all of those who helped bring expanded access to “reproductive health” through the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012—recently signed by President Aquino. This bill states that women and men—living in the most Catholic of Catholic countries—can now “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.” What the Gates Foundation website omits is information about the provision within the bill involving “population management” through mandatory counseling of couples seeking marriage licenses. In this case, social justice involves a demand that couples learn about the government’s views on an ideal family size of two children—coming one step closer to China in its government’s one-child policy.
This commitment to a distorted definition of social justice by Melinda and Bill Gates will likely continue because they have been lead to believe that such control is what is best for people. The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population. Indeed, the population agenda is a trap that many wealthy, highly intelligent people have fallen into in the past. From the wealthy eugenics supporters of Planned Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger, to the Rockefeller family and their population control initiatives, this work continues today through their heirs—heirs like David Rockefeller—an ally of Bill and Melinda Gates. And some influential Catholics have been complicit in this. At one time, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame served as a trustee, and later, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, a funder of population causes counter to the teachings of the Church.
The population control initiatives promoted by the Gates Foundation will continue to grow nationally and internationally because they have convinced others and themselves that they are saving lives. On their website, they ask: “what is more life affirming than saving one third of mothers from dying in childbirth?” What they do not seem to acknowledge is how many unborn children have died from their initiatives.
We are indebted to Pope Benedict for many things. Within the liturgy specifically, I think his most outstanding contribution was drawing our attention to the majesty of God. This was done through his writings and actions, which directed our aim outside our own circle and toward a more complete relationship with our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.
The following excerpts are from an article written by Trent Beattie for the National Catholic Register. I encourage a reading of the entire article.
NEWS ANALYSIS: The pope emeritus’ words and deeds regarding the Mass led the faithful closer to God.
BY TRENT BEATTIE 03/20/2013
Pope Benedict XVI’s keen liturgical interest is well known to devout Catholics. Even before his papacy, books by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, such as The Feast of Faith and The Spirit of the Liturgy, were formative for many of the faithful in search of true liturgical principles.
During Benedict’s papacy, documents such as the 2007 apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis continued Benedict’s catechesis on the source and summit of the Christian life. While these writings have been highly significant for the Church, priests and bishops near the now-retired Holy Father believe his example has been even more so.
Msgr. Moroney, currently rector of St. John Seminary in Boston, believes that Pope Benedict XVI is, in many respects, the best articulator of the post-conciliar liturgical reform.
“This was true even before his papacy,” Msgr. Moroney said. “As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he was a leader in correcting popular misconceptions about what the Council Fathers said on many topics, the liturgy included.”
“The revivification of true liturgical reform was inspired not so much by the Holy Father’s words, as important as they were,” he said. “It was primarily inspired by his actions. He had a devotion to the liturgy that was manifested in the joyful and solemn way he celebrated it. He knew it was the source and summit of the Christian life, so this understanding brought joy and wonder to his heart, which was noticeable on his face.”
At the center of Pope Benedict’s liturgical legacy, according to Msgr. Moroney, is the proper definition of “full and active (or actual) participation by all the people,” recommended in the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Msgr. Moroney believes the Holy Father’s contribution to the understanding of what it means to participate in the liturgy can be summarized in three parts.
“The first,” he said, “is Benedict’s emphasis on interior participation in the liturgy. Our participation is not comprised mainly of exterior actions, but interior ones. Proper celebration of the liturgy is only possible when a grasp of the paschal mystery is present. That grasp is the heart of true liturgical participation.”
The second part is Benedict’s “exceptional support” of the re-translation of the Roman Missal into English. He continued his predecessor’s work, due to a desire for “an ever deeper, fuller participation of the faithful,” made possible with a more accurate translation.
“The third part,” Msgr. Moroney said, “of Benedict’s contribution to the proper definition of participation in the liturgy is his promotion of mystery and solemnity inherent in the Church’s official worship. He knew the liturgy was not something we invent, but something we receive, and that it was an encounter with the living God, the source of our well-being.”
Norbertine Father Ambrose Criste currently serves as the novice master for St. Michael’s Abbey in Silverado, Calif…
Father Criste, like Msgr. Moroney, believes Pope Benedict’s greatest contribution to the sacred liturgy is the authentic interpretation of the writings of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.
“So many false ideas about the liturgy were spread after the Council. It was refreshing to have Pope Benedict clarify things, which he actually started to do long before his papacy,” Father Criste said.
After Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he went one step further in making his previous liturgical teachings apparent, according to Father Criste. In 2007, he issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed the faithful greater access to the traditional Latin Mass. In the letter accompanying the motu proprio, the Holy Father made it clear that the Mass offered according to the 1962 Missal was never abrogated.
“This was highly significant,” Father Criste said, “because authentic liturgy is never a matter of breaking with the past, but a continuation of it. There can be legitimate developments, to be sure, but to make something up without any connection to what preceded it is decidedly un-Catholic.”
Father Criste was honored to serve as the Holy Father’s deacon at two Masses. Of those occasions, he said, “The humility and reverence with which Benedict conducted himself were remarkable. There was nothing casual about what he did. Rather, you could see that he was deeply, prayerfully devoted to the sacred liturgy. He knew it was not a matter of creativity or novelty, but faithfulness and tradition.”
Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, Neb., sees Pope Benedict’s promotion of the beauty of the liturgy as his primary legacy.
“When I first came to Rome in 1989 as a priest-student, I was fortunate to witness many of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Masses,” the former Denver auxiliary said. “They were in the ordinary form, but in Latin. They were always done reverently, due to the cardinal’s perception of the transcendent nature of the liturgy. He knew that when you encounter the Almighty casualness was not acceptable.”
“He knew, even before his days as Cardinal Ratzinger, that without reverence — which is intimately linked with faithfulness to the rubrics — you are not allowing the liturgy to influence your soul,” Bishop Conley said. “Instead, you are the one creating your own liturgy in your own image.”
Bishop Conley believes the release of Summorum Pontificum was a huge turning point in the modern liturgical life of the Church because it made the extraordinary form of the Roman rite more accessible to the faithful and removed any shadows that might have been associated with it. This has influenced not only those attending the extraordinary form, but those attending the ordinary form as well.
“It has become more common to witness the use of the Latin language, the pipe organ and Gregorian chant in the ordinary form,” the Lincoln bishop pointed out. “Benedict wanted to demonstrate that the two forms are very much connected. This reality had been blurred in most places following the Council because the writings of the Council Fathers often went unheeded. Benedict wanted to make it clear that, at its core, the Church’s liturgy is one, although it does have various forms.”
“For any form of the liturgy to be effective, it must express the order, harmony and appeal of God. Beauty is not optional, but essential, for proper liturgy,” Bishop Conley explained…”
Bishop Conley said that Benedict knew sacred art was not about self-expression, but pointing to the source of beauty — almighty God. Sacred art, whether visual or auditory, enables us to transcend our daily lives and encounter the living God in a way that is often far more effective than merely stating facts about God.
“Benedict thought the most powerful arguments for the faith were Christian art and the lives of the saints,” Bishop Conley stated. “These two entities are very closely related, because the saints received the graces necessary for their exemplary lives through the liturgy of the Church, which is the wellspring of Christian art.
“We are indebted to Pope Benedict for many things. Within the liturgy specifically, I think his most outstanding contribution was drawing our attention to the majesty of God. This was done through his writings and actions, which directed our aim outside our own circle and toward a more complete relationship with our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.”
In this interview, His Eminence, Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, speaks on abortion and on the duty of Catholic politicians in this regard.
The 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade has just passed which legalised abortion in America under the auspices of “health care”. Could you comment on the devastation and misery which this has brought to thousands of women and also why abortion is a crime which should never be decriminalised?
The celebration of the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade underlines for the United States of America the incalculable harm which has been done by the legalization of abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with healthcare, the infant in the womb is not a disease but a gift of new human life. Over 50 million lives have been taken since the handing down of Roe vs. Wade, a decision which practically permits the taking of the life of the infant in the womb up to the very moment of birth. It is not possible to comprehend all of the devastation worked by procured abortion on demand during these past forty years. There is, first of all, the devastation of the loss of innocent and defenceless human life in such staggering numbers. At the same time, there is the tremendous suffering of the women who have undergone an abortion and who have come to understand that they have violently taken a new human life conceived in their wombs. To commit abortion is contrary to the deepest being of a woman. The taking of an innocent and defenceless human life can never be right, can never be justified. Therefore, to decriminalize abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system, the principle that human life is to be safeguarded and defended at all times. It is clear that, in the United States of America, the decriminalization of abortion has resulted in millions of deaths, in the loss of respect for woman and in the ever greater violence which sadly marks American society today.
The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar has triggered a frenzy amongst abortion activists in a similar way to which deception and lies were used in the case of Norma Jean McCorvey’s pregnancy in 1973. What lessons can the Irish government learn from the McCorvey case to prevent the Savita Case becoming Ireland’s Roe vs Wade?
The death of Savita Halappanavar is indeed tragic. It is, however, contrary to right reason to hold that an innocent and defenceless human life can be justifiably destroyed in order to save the life of the mother. The Irish people, and especially the Irish government, should be very alert to the kind of argumentation which will be used by the secular media and by secular ideologues, in general, claiming that the destruction of the new human life in her womb could have saved the life of Savita Halappanavar and, therefore, would have been justified. Such an argument is absurd in itself. Even though, if the reports are correct, Savita Halappanavar requested an abortion, her request would not have made it right for the law to permit such an act which is always and everywhere wrong.
Catholic bishops have been criticised for saying that abortion introduces a “culture of death”, also some politicians have complained that Pro Life groups have sent them information including images detailing the horror of abortion. They appeal for what they call a “civilised” and calm debate. Is there anything civilised about abortion and does the use of graphic imagery help create awareness of the gravity of the evil which occurs when an abortion is committed?
With regard to the complaint of some about the language of “culture of death,” and also about certain images which portray the horror of abortion, one must observe that we have a habit in society today to use language which helps us to avoid the reality about which we are speaking. Blessed John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter The Gospel of Life, insisted that such evils as abortion and euthanasia must be called by their proper names and not by euphemisms which tend to keep from our consciousness the objective reality of the evil involved (cf. no. 58). Therefore, the use of the language of “culture of death,” is not only accurate, but it is also most helpful, for it draws our attention to the pervasive effect of abortion on demand on society in general. In other words, the practice of abortion on demand leads to multiple forms of violence in the family and also against our fellow citizens who have grown weak, either under advanced years or because of special needs which they have or because of a grave illness.
With regard to the use of graphic images, in the context of the plea for a civilized debate with regard to abortion, certainly one must be careful not to use graphic images for the sake of being graphic. On the other hand, our fellow citizens should know what an abortion actually is. Images of the act of abortion or the results of abortion, when carefully presented to the public, can help the public, in general, to recognize the grave evil which besets us and to take appropriate action.
What is the duty of a Catholic politician when faced with this type of legislation and can there ever be a situation where he may vote for abortion even if he believes it to be restricted?
The duty of a Catholic politician when he is faced with anti-life or anti-family legislation is to support all of those measures which will most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage. Sometimes it is not possible to eliminate at once completely the evil. The Catholic politician cannot vote for any legislation which would confirm the evil or even advance it, but, at the same time, if there is some legislation which will reduce the practice of the evil, he would be justified in supporting that legislation, as long as he also acknowledges the intrinsic evil of the practice involved and the need for his constituency to take appropriate action to eliminate the practice altogether.
It is clear from Canon 915 that abortion is a mortal sin and a collaboration with evil, can those who claim to be Catholic vote for it and remain full members of the Church? Also what is the role of the local bishop with regard to this matter?
With regard to Canon 915, it states that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin should not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins and therefore once a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion, as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion. In my own experience, when I have informed Catholic politicians who were supporting anti-life or anti-family legislation not to approach to receive Holy Communion, they have understood and have followed the discipline of the Church as it is set forth in Canon 915.
Depending on the situation, the Diocesan Bishop may be involved directly in admonishing the politician, but it is also within the pastoral care of the parish priest to admonish anyone in his congregation who is persisting obstinately in manifest grave sin not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The local Bishop should teach clearly in the matter and also encourage his priests to make sure that the Church’s discipline is observed, in order to avoid the grave sin of sacrilege on the part of the Catholic politician who approaches to receive Holy Communion when he is persisting obstinately in grave moral evil, and to prevent the scandal which is caused when such individuals receive Holy Communion, because their reception of Holy Communion gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm.
In your book, Divine Love Made Flesh, you explain that Catholics who support abortion legislation should refrain from receiving Holy Communion not only because of the public scandal but also out of love for Our Lord. Could you explain?
In response to the last question, surely the consideration of public scandal must be in the mind of those who approach to receive Holy Communion unworthily. However, at a much deeper level of faith and of personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, a person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin will refrain from approaching to receive Holy Communion because of his love of our Lord and his sorrow for the grave sin which he is commiting against our Lord and His Holy Church. In fact, it is the recognition of the grave offense against the Lord which will most inspire a conversion of heart in the Catholic politician who publicly supports anti-life or anti-family legislation. One recalls here the words of Saint Paul in chapter 11 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, in which he addressed a situation of the sacrilegious receiving of Holy Communion among the faithful at Corinth, Saint Paul wrote that the person who receives Holy Communion unworthily sins against the Lord and therefore brings about his own condemnation. The passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians reads: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).
Christian News Network – November 25, 2012:
Former Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain: ‘Leave Abortion Alone’
Former Republican presidential candidate and current United States Senator John McCain told reporters this morning that politicians should stop pushing the issue of abortion.
McCain explained to Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday that he believes that there are more pressing matters in the nation.
“I can state my position on abortion, but other than that, leave the issue alone,” he said, “when we are in the kind of economic situation, and frankly, national security situation we’re in.”
When asked whether he would allow abortion to continue in America, after a slight laugh, McCain replied that he would.
“I would allow those opinions and respect those opinions,” he said. “I’m proud of my pro-life position and record, and if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views.”
McCain had also outlined during the interview that he believes Republicans need to be more positive in projecting their stance on national matters, instead of stating what they are against.
“I think we have to have a bigger tent,” he said. “It can’t be just being against the Democrats, and against Harry Reid and against Obama. You’ve got to be for things. And we have to give them something like the  Contract with America that we gave them some years ago.”
“You’ve got to be for things.”
What exactly does McCain think being “pro” something means?
The comment below by Alan John de Bernardine, which he posted at LifesiteNews.com, pretty much expresses my viewpoint.
How many points can one contest in a single comment? I’ll try to limit myself to the first two or three assertions of Sen. McCain in the above article:
Well, what in the world are you in the Senate for, if matters of life and death aren’t worth fighting for? What exactly do you want to do for society? What kind of soldier, when the enemy is threatening to kill our POWs, would suggest “We should just state our position, but other than that, let’s just leave the issue alone.” Mr. McCain, what kind of hero talks like that?
In the face of the annual slaughter of roughly 1,000,000 unborn Americans, I find your preoccupation with the economy and national security a bit incredible. Do you think that the killing of almost 50,000,000 unborn Americans since the passing of Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with our present economic and national security problems? Apparently, you fail to understand the cause and effect relationship of moral behavior and social well being. That being so, I question your qualification as a leader of a civilized society. To not see the connection is a sign of great spiritual ignorance.
Sen. McCain, you are quoted as saying: “I’m proud of my pro-life position.” Mr. McCain, you don’t have a pro-life position. You have a pro-choice position that concedes the option to kill unborn children. That’s not pro-life, but rather, tolerance of a false conception of liberty—the liberty to kill an innocent human being. How you can be proud of that, I have no idea. I guess it’s kind of like gay “pride,” and the sophisticated liberal “intellectual” ideology that welcomes the corruption of morals as “progress.” Which is apparently what you also embrace, when you suggest that the GOP needs a bigger tent. Sir, you are not offering a meaningful alternative to the Democratic agenda, but a merger.
Mr. McCain, you’ve stated your position. You have said, “if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views,” implying, I suppose, that our views can somehow be compatible or reconciled. I disagree with you Mr. McCain. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I cannot accept that opinion that it is contrary to truth and justice. Such an opinion must be rejected, for the good of society. If you can be so tolerant as to accept my view, then, please just “leave the issue alone.” Otherwise, a “civil war” within the GOP is inevitable, and you will be just as much the cause of it, and worse–you will be warring on the wrong side.