Catholics can’t be Republican?  Get a grip.  Born and raised a Catholic and have been voting right all my life.  You reinforce the general perception of Catholics amongst most of the people I know:  soft headed and stupid.  The dems are for the little guy?  Yeah.  Maybe in the 1930’s. Hadn’t you noticed that the “little guy” theory has employed a whole industry of people who have a vested interest in keeping people little?  In other words, IT’S AN INDUSTRY.  Take a look at what they have done to the inner cities.  Take a look at the miseducation of millions.  The dirty secret is that Catholic institutions have been pushing for bigger and bigger government since FDR because it lets them off the hook for taking care of the poor.  How a Catholic could have EVER voted left in the last forty years beggars belief.  But then again - Catholicism is no longer the religion of my childhood but has become a political philosophy overlaid with a veneer of religion.  Much like the contemporary Muslim religion.  If abortion is the ONLY thing that makes you stop and think about the democRAT party, then you surely have a lot of explaining to do when you meet your Maker.

Wow, what a needlessly harsh post. And nice way to smack the Church, which is, and should be, above politics. Catholicism isn’t about conservatism or liberalism

It’s about the Truth.

Thanks for this article Tom.  As a one-time Dem, turned GOP voter primarily because of the non-negotiable issues, including Life, I have thought about the need for a new political movement reflecting true Catholic beliefs.  Hopefully it would include not just ex-Dems but others across the political spectrum who refuse to self censor when it comes to The Faith in the public square.

Tom, you told your daughter Republicans are pro war, which is so dishonest and misleading. Truly, how could Catholics vote for FDR, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson? Wow! Come on now, get a grip. Democrats are unashamedly pro abortion, and after witnessing the abortion fest that was the first few days of the Democratic Convention, there is no doubt about that. That is truth. But it is untruth to say Republicans are pro war, as if War is what they stand for. An apology or explanation is needed. Thanks

I was once a Democrat, I changed parties and became a Republican only because of Former President Ronald Reagan. Like many I await the emergance of another Reagan. The Idea of a New Party is perhaps our only hope. Reagan was a true Patriotic American and because of it we enjoyed a rebirth of the USA. If there is to be a New Party it should be based on the Patriotic wisdom of Ronald Reagan. As we all remember, Reagan was a man of his word. He did not run on the platform of popular opinion, instead he changed the popular opinions of many. He kept all his promises, he was not a false lieing politician, he was real. The US of America undoubtably is a dieing Nation. A New Party can certainly bring it back to life.

Tom, instead of repeating the seamless tunic propaganda that war-is-equal-to-abortion, why not show your daughter real Catholic teaching on the matter? Start with Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo to Cardinal McCarrick which was made public in July 2004:  “The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Is that clear?

Mike, good point. I will change that from “the Republican platform” to the Republican reputation. But I don’t think the Republicans are “anti-war” in the sense that the Church is ...

Hat Lady: I agree 100%. I cite that letter often. I only disagree with your insinuation that this column says anything different ...

You can be pro-life and anti-war without saying the two positions are one thing. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and nearly every bishop I have read on the subject is pro-life and anti-war without conflating the two issues.

I totally disagree that Republicans are pro war. Show me one military action a Republican President took that didn’t follow a direct attack on the US or our interests or that didn’t follow years of diplomacy. Sadly history shows that diplomacy doesn’t work too often. If Obama is re-elected the world will learn that lesson the hard way when Iran starts bombing Israel with nukes.

Tom, I have been a registered independent since age eighteen because I have never been able to accept all of either party’s platform. But as I look back at almost sixty years of life, what I am aware of is that it has been democratic presidents that led the U.S. into WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Korea. It was a democratic president who ordered the bombing of Nagasaki & Hiroshima with atomic bombs. It was the democratic party that voted against civil rights for decades, it is now the democratic party that supports abortion on demand including literally butchering of children in the womb by late-term-abortion. It is the democratic party that believes and practices, “If you give a man a fish he will eat for today…” and be obligated to vote for democrats in order to get tomorrow’s fish.
In contrast, the republican party actually fought for and implemented civil rights with latecomer democrats jumping on the bandwagon and claiming all the credit ever since. It is the republican party that has supported traditional marriage. It is the republican party that is pro-life at this time. It is the republican party that has believed and practiced, “If you teach a man to fish he will feed himself and his family for a lifetime.” Your comment that republicans “are too pro-war” mistakes having a strong defense as being pro-war. A strong defense is actually anti-war because when your enemy knows you are more than capable of defending yourself he never attacks. We teach children to be more assertive and to stand up for themselves in order to prevent bullying. Bullies only pick on someone they perceive to be weaker. On the one hand, a weak defense increases the likelihood of war by inviting attack as Neville Chamberlain of Britain demonstrated with Hitler. On the other hand, faithful Catholics need to rein in an adventuresome government to prevent immoral wars. However, to support weakness of defense is morally corrupt in itself. It would be like leaving your daughter home alone and not locking the doors.

I was also once a Democrat, but I saw the party tilting to the left a long time ago.  Obama was always pro abortion even before he ran for office.  Up until now I considered myself an independent, but will vote Republican this year.  I watched the convention and was particularly impressed with Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum who spoke.  I will not even vote for a Democratic congressman in our district who used to be pro life but seems to be toting the Democratic line, so in conscience cannot vote for a Democratic anymore.  Perhaps if they lose this election badly, they will begin cleaning house.

Thanks for the article. Glad someone is saying it.

Personally, I think Catholics should start our own party. Neither party represents our flies very good, not to mention both are in the pocket of lobbyists.

Tom Hoopes is describing a lot of Catholics who are die hard Democrats. They were programmed to believe that Republicans are for war and against the poor while they are for the RICH. This is history’s most successful propaganda con game. It worked on millions.  Now, all these die-hard Democrats who seriously want to be Catholic discover that Christ and the Democrat Party are like oil and water. They can never be one. Since the Die-Hards are so roboticly programmed to hate GOPers’, let’s form a party that is anti-God lite.  Gee, what an idea.

The time for toleration is past. Democratic voters need to step up and found a new Democratic Party that is true to the traditions of the party earlier in the 20th century.

Thats the bottom line when it comes to politics.But I would keep in mind it is not salvation

As a recent convert, this conversation is confusing to me. I have some questions concerning either party’s willingness to go to war and how that squares with the Catholic Church, which I hope all of you will help me understand better. 
-The Catholic Church, and we as lay people, are known among ourselves as the “Church Militant,” are we not?
-There IS a spiritual battle between good and evil and that war is being waged right now.
-I think that spiritual battle frequently spills over onto the earth, it manifests on earth, and the people (souls) of earth are the spoils of the war.
-If the spiritual battle between good and evil is waged in heaven, why is it wrong for the battle to be joined on earth too?
-We as lay people are strongly encouraged to pray to St. Michael the Archangel to defend us in battle. St. Michael is always represented as a great warrior.  It seems then that at least some angels are warriors.  I always thought that the St. Michael prayer implied that we are ALSO engaged in the great battle, and that we acknowledge that we need God’s help to overcome evil.
-My question is, do I misunderstand?  As Catholics are we supposed to be praying that Archangel St. Michael defends us in battle while we pray fervently but refuse to pick up our own weapons to defend ourselves and others who are in need of defense?
-Thanks in advance for any help you can give me in straigtening this all out within myself.  I thought I understood it, but maybe I don’t.

Tom, I didn’t have to read your article to know what I would find it saying; the headline was enough.  I just read the comments.  In that respect I’m like so many Catholics (and you) that think they know what Republicans believe.  Their “knowledge” of Republicans is from “social justice, life and peace” talking points of the Democrats.  The Democrats’ current leader, President Barack Obama, publicly acknowledge his admiration for Cardinal Bernardin for his leadership in enacting “social justice,” into Catholic teaching prominence.  It fits in well with his political ambitions to “remake” America from the great country it used to be to the one he wants - one that “consumes less” with a “declining standard of living” and a smaller “footprint” in the world.  He doesn’t like America; just like Catholic Democrats don’t like Republicans.  Both have misinterpreted what they don’t like.

So, Tom, I have to ask you - how many pro-life, Republican Congressional legislators have you helped get elected? 

You see, I had an experience like that of Susana Martizez, Republican Governor of New Mexico.  She was a Democrat all her life and was going to run for the Office of District Attorney.  She says that two Republicans invited her and her husband to lunch one day to talk.  She believed they were going to try to get her to change her party affiliation, and run as a Republican.  That never came up during lunch.  They just explained what they believed.  Afterward, in the car she turned to her husband and said, “I’ll be damned, we have been Republicans all our life and didn’t know it.” 

That was the exact same thought that popped into my head during a one hour conversation I had with a Republican candidate for Congress after a pro-life candidates forum in the park in 1976, Long Beach, CA.  We stood on a sidewalk.  I asked questions.  He answered, doing most of the talking.  I never commented on what he said.  I just asked another question and listened to his answer.  A half hour into our “private” Q&A, the thought just jumped into my mind - “Oh my God, I’ve been a Republican all my life and never knew it.”  I never told him that until years latter when he had been elected to his third Congressional term and was going to be speaking for a Republican State Assemblyman who I had helped get elected as a volunteer,  and who then asked me to come to work for him and open up his district office in Orange County.  That Assemblyman defeated the previous incumbent, a three term pro-abortion Democrat.

I helped three pro-life Congressmen get elected, and a couple pro-life CA State Assembly Members, all as a volunteer, and all defeating multi-term pro-abortion, incumbent Democrats.  You see, I never knew Republicans before that day I talked to that young Catholic, Notre Dame, Georgetown graduate lawyer.  And even when I realized I was a “Republican” in my political beliefs, I could not register as one, emotionally, because of the biased beliefs I had about them being raised in a South Chicago, Irish Catholic Democrat family whose one older brother was Vice President of County Young Democrats club and who introduced the Democrat candidate for President, John F. Kennedy, to a town square outdoor rally.  In my volunteering to get pro-life candidates elected, all of whom were Republicans running against incumbent, pro-abortion Democrats, I got to meet and know Republican people; they were nothing like what I was told they were like.  Even then, I couldn’t register, emotionally for a couple years, as a Republican. I had registered out of the Democrat Party and became an Independent.   

It wasn’t until 1978 that I registered as a Republican when I heard on the news that the Republican Party just adopted a Right to Life Constitutional Amendment to their National Party Platform.  I knew from first hand experience how “going against the current” that position was, but I thought that if the Republican Party can be that principled to add that to their platform, then I can surely give them my name identification in support.  I’ve been a conservative Republican ever since.

No, Tom, we don’t need a “Catholic” Party.  Thoughtful Catholic Democrats just have to learn who Republicans really are, first hand, up close, and then join them in their fight for the values that you want.  Remember, the Republican Party was founded on ending slavery, and Lincoln was our first president.  It was the Democrat Party that supported slavery, and later the KKK and Jim Crow laws of the south, and school segregation.  It was the Republican Legislators who voted in Congress for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 in larger percentages than the Democrat Members.  Catholics have a home in the Republican Party, especially compared to what the Democrat Party has become by watching their recent National convention.  If Catholics left the Democrat Party in the numbers like they should, the Democrat Party would cease to have the political power to advocate what they did in their recent convention and the power to transform their beliefs into law.

CatholicbyChoice, click here to see the Catechism on Just War ... http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm ... And be careful not to confuse spiritual warfare and battle with military warfare and battle.

Stilbelieve, your assumptions about the post are entirely incorrect. Please read the article.

@CatholicByChoice: Catholics are not necessarily pacifist, but we follow St Paul: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

When earthly enemies attack us, it is just to recognize that the spirit of evil that impels them to do this is our enemy, while the flesh (the human being) is our brother. It may sometimes be necessary (if tragic) to do physical battle and kill our brothers, but if we can defeat the evil spirits that drive them (with love and truth) while not doing harm to our brothers, that is better. The danger in engaging in physical combat against a man driven by a spirit of rage is that if we simply fight him, the flesh (the two human beings) is wounded and killed, while the spirit of rage is given a home in both their hearts. The flesh (the human beings, children of God) is defeated, and the spirit of evil wins.

Still, it is sometimes necessary to fight, and to determine when it is acceptable to make war, we have a just war doctrine. See http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm for more information. To my mind, neither party is reluctant enough to bomb foreigners, or eager enough to care for American babies.

If you had lived in this world for 85 years, you would see many of the fallacies in your ideas. The only viable option you now have for the continuation of the greatest experiment in representative government is to vote with the Republican Party.  You are too steeped in Democrat revisionist history and mythology.  If you want to be a Ross Perot traitor to our nation keep up your drive for another political party. There is now a clear choice between good and evil, and there is no common ground between them or any room for compromise with the truth you claim to profess.  Apostate Catholics created great scandal for allowing Obama to be elected.  If they value salvation, they had better rectify their treason and vote Obama out.

Come join the Modern Whig Party.

“Catholic by Choice” your response is so amazing. Yours should be the article we all are talking about. Sorry Tom, you are still enexperienced and influenced by the Social Justice talking points. I agree, we don’t need a “Catholic Party”, we have a home in the Republican Party. Both parties have their elites, we need to get involve grass roots to keep the republican party honest. The democrat party is way too lost and evil.

Tom, I challenge you to name any war—led by Democrats or Republicans—that wasn’t at its core an effort to establish justice in the face of evil.  If those are the kinds of battles that are foisted upon us (and invariably, they are, granted sometimes short of direct attack on the nation or by non-state, non-declared, non-let’s-follow-the-old-rules-of-gentlemanly-war wars), then I might think it’s OK to be “non-anti-war” (NOBODY is “pro-war”) because of the Catholic principle of working toward a greater good.  Jesus’ admonition to turn the other cheek was NOT an advocacy of pacifism rather than confronting evil, so let’s not even go there.

As a retired career officer, I feel I can speak about war—and absolutely, NOBODY is “pro-war.”  Reputations usually have a large amount of mischaracterization, like I think are the ones you cite.

I meant in response to “stilbelieve”

Maria, I’m proposing that pro-life Democrats need to leave their Party, not that pro-life Republicans need to leave theirs. We desperately need a Democratic Ross Perot!

Rich, from the Centurion who Christ praised to Captain Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II’s devout dad, the military has long been a noble profession made up of people willing to lay down their lives for their friends. That doesn’t make all wars they engage in just, though. Our efforts in Afghanistan got a thumbs-up from Rome, but the invasion of Iraq was deemed unjust by two popes and every bishop worldwide who wrote about it at all, and every theologian I have seen except a couple of Americans.

I liked that you brought up the topic and agree with “still believe” as he stated, people just need to invistigate what drives each party and what they really stand for and the overall goal they are trying to attain for America.  Repulicans really seem to be trying to keep America -America and not trying to ‘transform’ it into something else.  Like Dennis Prager always states, the Democratic party has become a party of the far left and not what is once was.  That’s why your article was a good one to get paople to really think before they just vote for a member of their ‘party’, discover what each party really supports and the direction they are leading our country before you consider them as a choice.  We can’t just blindly vote by party any more.  We have to grow up and do some investigative research of our own and ‘be not afraid’ to vote for someone who believes more in line with our values than for someone whose only connection is that they are from the party we belong to.  I feel this is such an important election that we all need to be aware of the ramifications for our great country.
Thanks for writing this and allowing us to comment.

Honestly I feel like, as Catholics, we shouldn’t be aligning ourselves with either party.  Both parties are inadequate when it comes to agreeing with Catholic moral teaching.  Unfortunately too many people see themselves as party members first and then Catholic.  Until that changes many are able to shoehorn in their belief that Catholicism supports all of the policies of either party.  I think we need to focus on being Catholic first and support the parties on what they do that we agree with but remain steadfast against them on the immoralities they promote.  It seems like the only way to do that is to not be in either party.

I, too was raised democrat and voted that way until I realized the abortion platform. Your article has convinced of something I have long suspected.  The Republican party, the one of Lincoln, has NOT changed.  Instead the Democratic party, true to form, has done it’s best to malign it with lies, something they are exceptionally good at.  Too bad there are still so many suckers casting votes.
For years, I would try to understand the confusion of hearing the democrats demonize republicans for doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS: stealing from fellow countrymen to get rich themselves and starting wars.
After reading some of the tweets these “social justice” democrats sent Cardinal Dolan, I am convinced the democratic party is the party of Satan.  They are one ugly group.  They booed God. That says it all.

TOM HOOPES writes:

“...It is crucially important that we have at least two morally viable parties proposing solutions to America’s problems…”

Tom’s hope in the political parties in today’s environment is a good idea…

But, we have two minority parties (yes, Dems and Reps) who have gained an
inordinate and unconstitutional power and control of our gov (fed, state, local)
...and they serve only the self-interest of a very small core of less than
one percent of the individual political parties.

We in Arizona are putting a question on our statewide ballot “Top Two” run-off
type of primary and general election.  Yes this will start the weakening of
the power the two minority parties…and they are squealling like a trapped pig
being hog-tied.

If the “Top Two” question passes all political parties and individuals will
have equal access to the ballot and groups like a new “catholic democrats”
group/party may have a fighting chance to put good people into office at all
levels (fed, state, local) and then pass good law and dump bad laws.

Funny how the Catholics that complain that if other Christians would just stop believeing the lies they hear from their church leaders and investigate for themselves, they would find out what the Catholic Church really teaches and believes and then join us…..are the same ones who listen to the lies the democrats and the liberal press spew about what Republicans believe. Why don’t you investigate for yourselves? And join us!

Maria, thank you for such a gracious comment!
-Tom Hoopes:  thank you for the link, I will look it up.  But respectfully, your statement:  “And be careful not to confuse spiritual warfare and battle with military warfare and battle” makes no sense at all.
-John Henry:  thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the link and I will read it.
-The Democratic party vehementanly denied God three times at the Democratic Convention.  I could not believe what I was seeing unfolding before me on the TV.  Peter also denied Christ three times, before the cock crowed.  How much more proof do you need that the Democratic Party is controlled by the evil one?  As Catholics and as Christians, pray for them, and sever all your ties to them! THEY DENIED GOD THREE TIMES!  Wake up, and save your souls! 
-If you watched the Republican Convention, God was mentioned all throughout the convention.  I think every single speaker invoked God.
-I was raised a Democrat and never gave it much thought until, in my early twenties I began to see the Democrats taking actions that I simply could not lend my name and my support too.  I registered as Republican and am a Republican today.

Ooops, I meant that word to be “vehemently!”

Tom

Ok, I read your article. 

You ended saying, “At any rate, true Democrats need to do something.

They don’t want to be Republicans. Fine. Who can blame them?”

I can - because I know they are mistaken and misled.

I can also blame it on the USCCB because of their blind bias against the Republican Party in their “Faithful Citizenship” and prior to that the bishops’ “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.”  The bishops took Cardinal Bernardin’s “social justice is equal to intrinsic evil”, hook, line and sinker (even though they will deny it) and soothed the Catholics’ consciences enabling them to stay in the Democrat Party even though it was the major political force keeping abortion on demand legal, if not the only political force.  With the Catholic Democrats safely secured to the pro-abortion party deck, comforted that “their party’s caring for life doesn’t stop at birth,” the stage was set for a megalomaniac to take the helm which happened in 2008 with 54% of Catholics voting for him based on exit polls, and at least 50% of the bishops based on the opinion of a well connected Catholic news person. I can believe that about the bishops because of my own checking of voter registration rolls out of curiosity of how priest in the Diocese of Orange were registered to vote 27 years AFTER Roe v. Wade, I found that of those who were registered to vote, over half were registered in the Democrat Party, and about 1/3 in the Republican Party. Half the bishops were registered Democrat, too. And this is a conservative county.

Why are the bishops “blindly biased against the Republican Party?”  Because so many of them are Democrats themselves, as well as the clergy and the laity, and that emotional connection to the Democrat Party can’t even be broken by the legal murdering of unborn babies.  You see, the Church has a teaching that it is a sin against the 5th Commandment to deny someone their rights and, “This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization (such as the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan) which promotes racial, ethnic or religious hatred.”(“Life in Christ - A Catholic Catechism for Adults,” 1995)  Tom, if it is a sin to join an organization that denies one their human rights, then why is it NOT a sin against the 5th Commandment to join the Democrat Party which blatantly promotes the killing of innocent human beings before they are born?  Isn’t denying an innocent person their right to life more serious and important than harboring unkind and unjust thoughts or actions against a person born?

The bishops efforts to justify their claim that “they are neither Democrat nor Republican” required setting the Republican Party up as a straw man using prudential judgment issues so the bishops didn’t have to be put in the position to enforce the Church teaching on the sin of denying one their human rights.  When it was just the Nazi Party and the KKK that were offending those rights, Catholic bishops and clergy were not members of those “organizations,” so they could teach, with clean hands, that it was a “sin against justice as well as charity.”  But, now, with the actions taken by the Democrat Party, post 1973, in support of Roe v Wade and unencumbered abortion, they had a dilemma because so many of them were personally attached to the now pro-abortion party, registration wise and emotionally with their personal identity.  You see, a Republicans attachment to the party is not emotional, it’s a connection with their mind; with Democrats, it’s a connection with their “heart.”  My story in my comment above, details that connection and how hard it is to break it.  It is difficult to accept that you are not who you think you are.  The bishops couldn’t accept it, and soothed their consciences by smearing the Republican Party by way of Cardinal Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life.” 

It is that smear with innuendo using prudential judgment issues you and so many other current Catholic Democrats have been infected with that makes you “feel” the way you do towards the Republican Party.  The thinking behind the smear was developed by Archbishop Bernardin in the early-mid 1980’s to save the Democrat Party (remember, he was the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago; Chicago, govern by a City Council made up of 50 Wards, all 50 Wards represented by a Democrat, not one Republican Ward in the entire city). (Cardinal Bernardin also changed the definition of pro-life by adding so-called “social justice” issues to the definition to “keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism,” 1989, a favorable biography by Eugene Kennedy, a 30 year-long close friend of the Cardinal). No examples of intrinsic evil issues like abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research or human cloning could be attributed to the Republican Party positions. 

I was finally able to register into the Republican Party out of respect for what they stood for and the character of their candidates and volunteers who I got to know personally.  I was able to register out of the Democrat Party out of disgust for their support for legal abortion, as well as discovering as I grew older that they are not for the “little people,” they are for absolute power such as they have in Chicago and will stop at nothing to get it whether through words or actions, or both.  Their National Convention this year is a classic illustration of their character.  If ever there was a time for Catholic Democrats to send a message to their party, it is now.  Register out of that party; send your county or state party chairman a postcard telling them why; register as an Independent and cast a vote to help us pro-life Republicans stay strong in our party, especially this election to get employment rising again like Ronald Reagan was able to do twenty-two years ago after Jimmy Carter.  And finally, go see the movie 2016 to understand more about Barack Obama, what made him the way he is and what his plan is for our country, and pick up Dinesh D’Souza’s book “Obama’s America” to read before you vote this election.

Every Catholic adult is called to use your intellect & reason, know your Faith from the authentic sources, read the platform, compare it to the teachings of Christ and the Church, ask questions of those who want your precious unrepeatable vote, question the answers. 

Then use your will to make the Faith come alive, at home, at Church, at work, at school, in the public square.  That’s what I was taught by the nuns and priests in the 1950s, when education was still about forming the will, developing the intellect and reason.

The problem is not in the political realm.  As long as we think it is, then we will continue to plunge more deeply into chaos.  God have mercy & give us more time to “elect” Him.

Thank you, stillbelieve, you think, reason and write beautifully.

Stillbelieve.  What can you expect, when only 25 percent of the Catholics still believe in the Real Presence.  That is the real tragedy of the Second Vatican Council that brought the Church into the modern world. Things might be very different had they tried to bring the modern wold into the Church Can you imagine how many sacrilegious Communions occur at every Mass.  I am glad someone else knows about the duplicity of Cardinal Bernardin and his malady.
I recommend reading No Higher Power Obama’s war on Religious Freedom by Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum and George Neumayr of the American Spectator. I know you would appreciate it.

  Aren’t we admonished to be charitable towards our fellow human beings, but not to be taken in by falsehoods, that is, to be as gentle as doves and cunning as snakes?  The Democratic Party (DP) takes the Catholic vote for granted. Why?
  Catholic voters are not cunning. They think that the DP professes Catholic values in practice, for the betterment of all.  They ignore what they see and hear and mindlessly vote the same way.
  Catholic voters are ignorant of their Faith, therefore they misapply it in practice. They divorce their vote from belief. They think that all issues are of equal weight and do not believe in sin, and as long as they do more good things then bad things (based on what they believe is “bad” which is very little), then Godly Judgment will be in their favor at the End.   
  Catholic voters are political ideologues who believe more in the cult of man than God. To love God above all things is to take a risk, to go against the mainstream.  At best, they have given in to groupthink; at worst, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing who say one thing and do another. 
  Granted, the Republican Party is far from perfect. But at this particular point in time it is the far better choice for Catholics.  Third parties do not work in this country and may have the effect of keeping the greater of two evils in office.
  Perhaps it is better that we create a CATHOLIC TEA PARTY instead, from a process view. Think about it.

stilbelieve, I wish I could express myself as well as you do in your writing.
-Could we possibly interest you in getting your own blog on the National Catholic Register?  I would be happy to start a write-in campaign to pursuade the NCR to add you as a blogger.  We need voices like yours speaking the truth about the Republican party and the Democratic party.  Would you be interested?

still believe, I agree with your comments 100%.  I do believe that the Bishops and many of our priests lean to the left and Democratic party because of “social teachings’ and also immigration laws.  But if a party or candidate is pro-abortion, that trumps everything.  To preach that this is true and then to practice something else is hypocritical.  I know that many dioceses employ personnel such as nuns and such that go against Catholic teachings.  Our diocesan advocate for social justice is said to be pro Planned Parenthood.  So naturally Catholics are confused as what to do.  There is another option Tom, if you’re not crazy about the Republican party.  Don’t vote for president.  You can do this and in fact, one state I believe is Nevada, has “none of the above”.  We will never get a viable third party candidate as long as this depends on money.  I think we should do it this way, no political campaigning until a month before election, after the candidates have been chosen, because now the media seems to be the deciding factor for many people including Catholics.

Thanks, Rosemary. That’s exactly what the article says: “The only viable option for a traditional Democrat is to not vote at all.” But you don’t need a “none of the above” ... just leave it blank!

No offense to Rosemary and Tom H regarding the notion of “don’t vote,” but I think a little common sense is needed. The fact is that a president will be elected come November, with or without your vote.

If you do not cast a vote for the Republican candidate, you raise the chances of four more years of the most anti-Catholic pro-abortion Democrat ever of being re-elected. In order to stand on principle (or pride)you will let this happen?

Go ahead, don’t vote. But don’t complain afterwards in an open blog about how your Catholic principles and freedoms are denigrated and destroyed. As I said in my previous post, the RP ain’t perfect, but its the best we got at the moment. Please don’t be a silly Catholic! Jeesh!!

Tom have you read anything people have been telling you here? You are the classic closed minded liberal who is responsible for this great country’s impending demise.

Wow. Because I don’t want Democrats to vote for Obama? Ah well. Pray for me!

I think Joe Donnelly is the perfect person to lead a New Democratic Party that would respect the Sanctity of human life and the Sanctity of Marriage and The Family.

I’m 73 and a cradle Catholic with 12 years of catholic education and an ethics course by Father Higgins, SJ.  I’m an RN and have voted all my life as a Conservative Republican. This is the most important vote that I will ever cast. If Obama gets in their will be the equivalent of do nothing, lay death squads for seniors.  With pre-existing conditions my Oncologist cannot do the routine mammograms I need If she disobeys, she will be fined, lose her license, jailed or all 3. I have had a mild stroke.  If I have another the ER can only give me Comfort care.  No neurological tests or surgery will be allowed.  It’s all in the Bill we had to pass in order to read it. My granddaughters will never know the USA, as I have know her. May God Bless the USA and show us His mercy in November.

Thanks for the free advice. It is worth what we paid for it.  You want us to break apart like the republican/tea party is rupturing.  Well, I think the Democratic party will last intact longer than it’s primary competition.  Perhaps the Catholic party might make sense but that would your contraception plank would be most interesting in debate.

Reggie, stop only watching Fox.  Get some real news.

On the positive side, People probably would like Dolan to talk at the catholic convention.

Thank you, Tom, for your thought-provoking article.  For shame on all the uncharitable words being thrown around in this combox!  We are called by God to be Catholics and Catholics only, and our moral salvation is not dependent on being part of a certain political party, as long as we do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong.  Some voters will always have qualms about the Republican party when it comes to just war (whether these concerns are founded or not), so what then would be bad about a scenario, as Tom hypothesizes, where those who formerly voted for an immoral political party instead created a party that was both pro-life and vehemently anti-war?? Think how healthy democracy would be if we as voters had several good and moral choices each time we went to the polls!  We can’t let political divisions put rifts in the Body of Christ (that’s what the devil wants!), so let’s please not accuse each other of being ‘traitors’ ‘responsible for impending demise’ and other such terrible things. This isn’t healthy conversation, and imagine what these comments might seem like to someone outside the faith (possibly a confused and alone Democratic party member who has recently come to the fullness of truth regarding abortion?) who is reading here to try to get some insight on what his next steps should be.  As we get closer and closer to Election Day, I think we all need to 1. think about how what we write is going to look after it leaves our fingertips and 2. Write Psalm 146 on our foreheads:  “Put not your trust in princes, in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.”

Tom, I know that at least one other NCRegister blogger has condemned what he called the false dichotomy that “not voting is a vote for President Obama”. The argument being that we are free to vote for either party or not vote for either and should not be coerced by such an allegedly false dichotomy. I respectfully disagree. In this country we the people are the government. To claim, “The only viable option for a traditional Democrat is to not vote at all”, is tantamount to recommending a sin of omission. We voters, as the real (whether diluted or not) source of power in this country, are duty bound to exercise our responsibility to voice our opinions by the one channel where it counts. We have a moral obligation as Christians to participate. The few times “to not vote at all” could be justified involves silly hypothetical dilemmas used in high school discussions that are utterly unlikely to arise in the real world. The contrasts between today’s democratic and republican parties provide no such dilemma. Both parties are equally likely to resort to war (just of different kinds) one party supports the murder of babies and the other doesn’t. To not vote is most certainly to vote for the party that idolizes the right of women and their doctors to murder babies.

Response to ‘new catholic’:  Your closing sentense “...To not vote is
most certainly to vote for the party that idolizes the right of women
and their doctors to murder babies.  I agree.  We must stop the murder
of our inocent pre-borns.

Remember, this is directed to die-hard Democrats who “vehemently disagree with the Republicans’ approach to policy, so they won’t vote for them.” If they are willing to do that, fine. If they aren’t (and many many will never votr Republicsn, on principle) I definitely counsel they not vote at all. A no vote will be better for their soul and their country than an Obama vote.

Sorry for typos!

Both parties are for more warfare and welfare. Obama can’t run as the anti-war president this time around! Neither party cares about truth or free will. Both parties are responsible for reckless, unconstitutional government spending. Neither follows process at their convention - they really don’t care what you think. Watch this: http://libertycrier.com/politics/reality-check-dnc-runs-over-delegates-with-scripted-platform-vote/ Pro Life Republicans need to consider Romney’s profiteering (Stericycle) off of abortion. Stop giving them tacit approval by being registered in their party. I’m registered Libertarian but would welcome a new party based on Catholic principles. It’s not about winning, it’s about truth, love, and being obedient to our Lord and his Church.

@Tom

“Remember, this is directed to die-hard Democrats who ‘vehemently disagree with the Republicans’ approach to policy, so they won’t vote for them.”

Tom, what is your answer to my question to you about it being a sin for Catholics to “join an organization that denies one their human rights”  where the Church uses the KKK and the Nazi Party as examples of sinning against the 5th Commandment, but are silent about joining the Democrat Party that is totally responsible for the denying the right to life to 52,000,000 American babies?

I would answer with the title of the post you are commenting on, and with the first sentence and last sentence of it. And the sentences in between.

Tom,
Thank you for this article which is causing a lot of us to consider these issues. It is sad that some Catholics can be so “die-hard Democrats who ‘vehemently disagree with the Republicans’ approach to policy, so they won’t vote for them.”
While I have no overwhelming affinity for the republican party, it does seem to be the only valid alternative at this time when right to life is recognized as being as important as it is.

Tom,

That is not an answer - that’s a cop out.  You are verifying with your response that prudential judgments are equal, if not greater in importance, than actual intrinsic evils. 

When you are praying the Lord’s Prayer standing before Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and pray for God’s “will be done on earth” and “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil,” what do you mean?  Do you think God creates life for it to be aborted?  Is abortion not evil? Is God in contradiction with himself?  There is a political party that will end legal abortions, but you are not interested in helping them because of some “prudential judgments” you hold against that party?  Babies have to continue to die because Catholic Democrats can’t get past their feelings of superiority to vote for that other party?  It is better for those Catholics to just not vote if they can’t vote Democrat?  Tom, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land because of Catholic Democrats. They are so filled with themselves they’d rather stand by and let babies be murdered in the millions than to vote for the Republican Party.  They’re not thinking of those babies and God’s will be done, and being delivered from evil; they are thinking of themselves and their will be done, clinging to their smug feelings of superiority, or personal material benefits of being a union member.  Now what kind of a “properly formed conscience” is that? That’s no different than a guy seeing a woman being beaten up on the street, but he won’t help her because he’s in a hurry and she’s a different color than him. Catholic Democrat prejudices win out; babies continue to die; and your solution is to form a purer Democrat Party? 

“... and your solution is to form a purer Democrat party.” What’s your solution?

Tom Hoopes:  Respectfully,
-With the wide-spread expansion of abortion hanging in the balance, it would be evil NOT to vote to stop the expansion of abortions.  To decide that you will not cast your vote to stop abortions is to be supportive of abortions.  Because you had the opportunity to stop them and refused to do it. Period.
-Time to review the Seven Deadly Sins which are the preferred tools of Satan, and take a good hard look at ourselves.  Pride. Envy. Anger. Sloth. Greed. Gluttony. Lust.
-Between the Republican and Democratic campaign for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world, which party most relies upon the stirring up and empowering of the Seven Deadly Sins to win the Presidency?

I actually think this article will resonate with frustrated pro-life Democrats. At any rate, a vote for empty-suit Romney, though better than Obummer, is hardly a choice to get excited about.

Alasdiar MacIntyre’s essay “The Only Vote Worth Casting in November” spells out the problem of the American two-party system clearly:

“When offered a choice between two politically intolerable
alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice
is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public
consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to
withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the
imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to
themselves the power of framing the alternatives.”

Link to full essay:
http://brandon.multics.org/library/Alasdair MacIntyre/macintyre2004vote.xhtml

Tom,

You ask, “What’s your solution?”

Since Catholics are the single, largest voting block for the Democrat Party, they should boycott them by removing their names from the Democrat registration rolls, and stop voting for them until they change their Party Platform on Roe v. Wade and abortion (as well as the other intrinsic evils the party supports).  They should flood the state and federal party headquarters with postcards informing them of the boycott and explaining that this action is not political but a spiritual one because as Catholics they profess to believe God is the giver of life and that they pray for God’s will to be done on earth and to not be lead into temptation but delivered from evil.  The intentional killing of an innocent human being is an evil act.

They should back up their boycott with proof of their professed beliefs and prayers by voting for the pro-life Republican Party, helping them get legislation passed and judges appointed to courts that support a Constitutional Right to life. 

It is as simple as that.  If that doesn’t purify the Democrat Party, they will cease to have any political power to continue keeping abortion on demand the law of the land, or enact any other intrinsic evils.  The question each Catholic Democrat has to ask themselves is:  Does my identity come from me being Catholic, or Democrat?  That decision was made by me a long time ago; it was made pretty simple because of the life issue – I picked Catholic.  But even then, I couldn’t become a Republican (because of my life-long ingrained Democrat prejudices) even though I was voting for them on the life issue and helping them get elected (because they were the only ones running who were pro-life).  Not until that party added a right to life plank to their platform did I say to myself, “If they are that principled to vote to add that to their national platform, I surely can give them my name identification in support for what they did.  And all the ingrained Democrat prejudices - vanished - like the longings of an old, ex girlfriend who I knew was bad for me.

Okay, so you have moved from “They should vote Republican” to “They should formally withdraw from the Democratic Party.” I agree whole-heartedly!

Out of curiosity: What about those who don’t withdraw?

Tom,

You asked for my solution.  My solution is the combination of those two things - withdraw telling the Dem leadership why, and voting for the pro-life Republican Party.  Is that what you “agree whole-heartedly!“on?

Those who don’t withdraw will illustrate the degree to which the bishops need to return to the Church teaching on the 5th commandment - that “joining an organization that denies one their human rights is a sin.”  The seriousness of sin, I don’t think the theologians have established.  But I would argue in the case of Catholic Democrats as of now, it is mortal sin because it is the numbers of Catholic Democrats that has given the Democrat Party the political power to keep abortion on demand the law of the land, resulting in the murder of 52,000,000 innocent human beings Catholics profess to believe were created by God.  The culpability of those murders is in the hands of those Catholics who should know better.  They should repent and do what is right.

As you found in your personal life, it will be very difficult for Democrats to just suddenly start voting Republican. And as the previous poster said, they will have good reasons not to.

As to how seriously Catholic bishops respond to members of a party ... Keep in mind that neither Blessed John Paul II, nor Pope Benedict XVI, nor pro-life hero Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, nor Cardinal John O’Connor, nor Archbishop Chaput, nor Cardinal Dolan ... not a one of them has excommunicated pro-abortion politicians, let alone members of a political party.

Instead, from Jesus’ praise for the Centurion (a leader in an anti-religious freedom Pagan army) and Nicodemus (a Pharisee, a group whose sins he condemned in the harshest terms), to the Church’s treatment of slave-traders in its ranks in years past, to its treatment of contraception users today ...

the Church always seems to err on the side of helping people out of sin, not cutting them off still in it.

God has erred in the same way in my life regarding my sins, thankfully!

Tom -

You said, “As you found in your personal life, it will be very difficult for Democrats to just suddenly start voting Republican.”

I may have not been clear.  I had no difficulty voting for pro-life Republicans from the start because all the incumbents were pro-abortion Democrats.

My difficulty was not voting for Republicans, it was becoming one by registering as one.

As for the rest of your comments, why, then, did the bishops have to smear the Republican Party with innuendos in “Faithful Citizenship” and “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics,” which enable Catholics to remain Democrats saying, “Their concern for life didn’t stop at birth.”?

The bishops and clergy will have a lot to answer for, too.

I believe this was an honestly intended argument.

But I think some important points are left out:

1. Democrats Hurt The Poor: Democrats’ welfare-state wealth-transfer policies have been shown over time to be absolutely disastrous for the poor and needy. They tend to break down the cultural institutions (churches, private almsgiving, community spirit, intact families, entrepreneurialism) which make it possible for any person born into need to improve his lot and the lot of his children. They are the primary cause of ongoing class strife in the United States and, indirectly, of racial strife.

In short, I would never vote for a Democrat because I would not want to stab my poor and needy neighbors in the back that way.

The Republicans are not much better, but because they at least say they oppose these destructive programs, and because they serve to slow down the rate of their growth (though they’ve never once downsized them), the Republicans are thus less-destructive to the needy than the Democrats, and the preferential option for the poor (if I were looking at this issue alone) would tell me to prefer Republicans over Democrats.

2. The Republican Peace Wing Is Preferable: The Democrats are every bit as pro-war as the Republicans; that was acknowledged. However, three things were not acknowledged:

(a.) The Democrats are far less honest about openly embracing it, so they create an illusion of being peace-loving which makes the public debate over such topics essentially a sham debate;

(b.) The Democrats are far less likely to vote for the military budgets that would sustain such forward-leaning involvement in third-world strife, which means that soldiers are more likely to be caught ill-prepared or -supplied in bad situations when Democrats are calling the shots;

(c.) The Republicans have a strong, but minority, wing of “isolationists” (to use the term their opponents use), who take a sober view about reducing America’s forward-leaning involvement while still keeping a strong military from a homeland-defense perspective. Ron Paul is the most famous, but there are other “paleo-” conservatives who take this view. They were ascendant in the 90’s because of the Bosnia thing; people forget that during the Clinton years, it was the DEMOCRATS who were the Wilsonian-style interventionists, and the REPUBLICANS who were isolationist! George W. Bush represented the norm for his party when he campaigned on a “no nation-building” foreign policy!

Then 9/11 happened and Bush’s administration did probably the most profound 180 on that topic that’s yet been seen in world history.

Now the peace-demonstrator types in the Democratic party are the Code Pink types: They bind up their opposition to war with their feminism and their pro-choice-ism and their anti-patriarchalism and their desire to wear giant foam vagina costumes. I really don’t think that Catholics are likely to find common-cause with that coalition for long.

But the Ron Paul types among the Republicans? Now, Catholics could find common cause with them. So if you’re going to pick a group of peaceniks, the Republican reduce-the-overseas-bases guys are by far preferable…and they tend, incidentally, to be pro-lifers, too.

3. The Democrats Are In Bed With Wall Street: A basic tu quoque, this observation is no less true for being a bit petty. In fact, it’s much the same problem as the “pro-war” problem: Democrats’ style is in deep conflict with their substance.

The Republicans are supposed to be the pro-big-business party, and the Democrats are supposed to be “for the little people,” right? Then why did Obama dominate Wall Street fundraising? Why have the handouts to select corporations increased under him, far outstripping those under Bush? Why is there such a carousel of administration officials and Democratic congresscritters going into and out of Wall Street investment banking and high-finance jobs? Why is it that the Bush administration did so many high-profile prosecutions of malfeasance by Wall Street executives, whereas Obama has done…none? And pretty much bent over backwards to ensure Jon Corzine got off scot-free? Why is it that inside the Beltway, it was a popular joke for the last two years to refer to the Obama’s Administration as “the Goldman Sachs Administration?”

The reality is that the Democrats talk a big game about regulating big business in order to scare Wall Street into coming to the table. Once they’re at the table, the Democrats say, “Well, we can either write our new regulations without your input, or, for certain considerations, we can write them WITH your input. Which would you prefer? (Nice business you have there; be a shame if anything happened to it….)”

The big corporations see the writing on the wall, and respond by saying, “Here’s a big check to help with your re-election, thank you sir, may I have another?”

In reply, the Democrats say, “You seem like reasonable fellows…and we don’t know as much about your business as you do. How do YOU think the regulations for your business should work?”

Then the big corporations get in a huddle and say, “We need to make this look good for the public, but still get a business advantage out of it. So we’ll ask them to write onerous regulations that SMALL businesses can never afford to comply with, but which we CAN afford to comply with.”

They then present these regulatory rules to the Democratic Congress, who pass them over the opposition of the Republican minority.

The Democrats then get loads of campaign funds, and the big businesses get regulations carefully crafted to LOOK crushing (so they can publicly say, “Woe is me, dem Dems done threw me in that thar briar patch!”) but which actually serve to prevent any small competitors coming in and stealing any market-share.

Thus the campaign funds are one form of incumbent-protection, and the regulations which prevent newcomers’ entry-to-market are another form of incumbent-protection, taken in trade.

That, friends, is how politics works. That’s the Kabuki theatre played out on the Sunday talk shows for the entertainment of the dupes.

Now, will someone explain to me again why any Catholic would even consider voting for a Democrat?

Oh, that’s right…because they mistook the Kabuki show for reality.

Get wise, folks. As harmless as doves, but as wise as serpents.

Thank you RC for you comments.  I think it helps to see the big picture, even if I’m sure the left will have a come back to all you stated.  It is amazing how things look different to different people (does it have to do with having a proper reading light?)
If so, then perhaps we need to consider giving a gift that gives for Christmas (a reading light, perhaps?)

RC, great post. I would disagree with you on one point though. While I’ll admit many elected Republicans don’t always walk the walk, it’s really unfair to critisize them for never cutting or eliminating the destructive programs for the poor you spoke of. If they were to do that the liberal press would curcify them and there’d never be any Republicans elected. Imagine what it would be like if Democrats controlled EVERYTHING. Eleiminating the rate of growth while not perfect is a step in the right direction. To be able to cut programs, we have to change the education system which currently teaches that government should provide for all.

Tom, I don’t understand many of the comments who didn’t couldn’t get the point you were trying to make.  But, it certainly got many to at least wake up and write some kind of response.  Good job!

R.C., your post was profound. Thanks for sharing that incredible insight to this issue…

Tom, I agree with many of your assertions.  Take it a step further.  Both parties currently spout off about anything big is bad; Dems say big business bad, Reps say big government bad. We have all heard Too Big To Fail. But yet look at the two party system.  The parties are huge.  The one thing Tea Partiers have correct is that they have decided to factionalize the Republican Party. It would be nice to a similar movement in the Democratic Party. 
The question then you have to ask: if this were to happen, since we need majorities to get anything passed, would coalitions occur?  Judging by recent history and even some of the comments above, I am skeptical.  We have resorted to shouting down and over those who disagree with us. We cannot have civil debates about issues.  Both sides take hostages and more often then not it is the American People who suffer.
Personally, I would like to see a 4 or more party system. I’m sure in an era of civil discourse and honest debate, this would best for all.  Then any voter could vote for someone their conscience allows instead of having to overlook a few critical issues, hold your nose and vote.

  If you really think about the title of the article and then read the first sentence, the underlying notion lacks a sense of history and political reality, not to mention the impact of the undeclared schism among Catholics.
  Who among you can truly define what a “true” Democrat is, then say that such a person is morally superior to any other person and worthy of your fellowship? True Democrats and their antecedents favored slavery until they lost the CW in the 1860s, then favored segregation and Jim Crow up until the 1960s.
  True Democrats have been in the forefront of every unfavorable progressive movement in the 20th century, including population control strategies such as applied eugenics, abortion, unrestrained divorce, loss of family cohesion, and contraception; the dumbing-down of government-run schools in the form of outcome equality, loss of international ranking and competitiveness, and the forcible coercion of students in the teaching of government- based values and policy, including but not limited to favoring the homosexual agenda over personal religious beliefs; and the economic slavery of minorities in the form of perpetual, generational welfare systems that stifles self-esteem, ambition, educational aspirations, and sense of accomplishment, and gives rise to notions of inferiority and worthlessness, racial hatred, and class envy.
  And now, true Democrats seek to force Catholics to choose between their beliefs and government forcing their secular beliefs on them, in direct violation of the First Amendment. That’s all I could think of for starters.
  So Mr. H, tell me what a good and true Democrat is supposed to look like and what they should believe, then tell me how many of them would gather around you in your new “Democratic” Party.
  Second, Catholics do not believe alike as the once did. We now act like “true Protestants,” like the sectional Protestants of the North and South during the CW, when both sides claimed God was on their side.  Liberal Catholics have been in the forefront of the aforementioned movements of the left, which are directly anti-Catholic in practice, and/or have produced results/consequences that are contrary to Church   teachings on faith and morals. Yet liberal Catholics remain steadfast in their positions and refuse to admit their failures. Is it the sin of pride? Have they lost their ability to discern?
  Again Mr. H, tell me what kind of Catholics would be in your new and true Democratic Party? The liberal ones who have rationalized all Catholic belief out of their minds and hearts or the ones who remain loyal to the teachings of the Church? Or do you believe you could create a coalition of liberal Catholics and Catholics who actually go the Church on Sunday and otherwise practice the Sacraments?
  Sorry if this offends any of the liberal Catholics out there; just calling it like I see it. Please note that I did not mention Republicans. My concern is with “pretend” Catholics, regardless of their political party affiliation.

I do not think breaking up into more political parties is a better way to elect the kind of leadership we want.  For Catholics, I think the question is: Does the party I am registered in represent the fundamental beliefs I hold and practice?  There are several well written comments, above, describing the Democrat Party as it has evolved over the past 40 years until what you see today.  I left that party, the party of the family I was born into in South Chicago, as soon as I learned the Party supported Roe v. Wade and opposed a constitutional amendment for the right to life. As a practicing Catholic who has raised 5 children, sending them all to 12 years of Catholic schooling, except the last one who went to a public high school after the money ran out, I have found wonderfully accepting home in the Republican Party.  Again, as described in several comments above, the Republican Party is nothing like the Democrat Party, and is nothing like what Democrats say the Republican Party is like.  I would urge Catholics, who know in their hearts as well as their minds they can not support the Democrat Party, to register out of the party by registering as Independent, and then follow or get to know the pro-life legislator closes to where you live and get to learn about his or her party.  The relief you will have knowing your name and votes are not going any longer to the anti-life, secular party is very comforting.  That will make your vote far more valuable than joining a small splinter group where you will never have any impact on election outcomes except being a spoiler to a pro-life candidate.

DSmith:

Thanks for your kind words. I only hope that more people will “take the red pill” (to borrow a phrase from the Matrix franchise a bit) and get out of dreamland before the country goes down the toilet.

Incidentally, this isn’t the only topic on which people need to “take the red pill.” The other is on the implications of American indebtedness and how to fix it.

I’ve posted big posts in other threads about that before. I don’t feel up to a big detailed one here, now (and it’d be off topic). Suffice it to say:

- If you don’t know that real unemployment is around 16% right now;

- If you don’t know that government debt only matters if it’s a large percentage of GDP, but that if it IS a large percentage of GDP, then it matters a lot;

- If you don’t know that Federal Revenues come from converting a percentage of GDP from private hands to government hands, and thus it’s important to view the question “how much money does the government need” through the lens of “how big is our GDP, and what percentage of that can we plausibly convert to revenue?”;

- If you don’t know that, no matter how we’ve raised or lowered taxes over the last 100 years, the 10-year moving average percentage of GDP that the U.S. has been able to convert to Federal Revenue has stayed within a percentage point of 19.5%, and there’s no plausible way we’re likely to be able to change that, no matter what we do to the tax code;

- If you don’t realize that the preceding fact means that spending more than 19.5% of GDP in any given year means taking on debt, and that, while you can afford more spending if you increase GDP (thus making your 19.5% a slice of a larger pie), you can’t, long-term, afford more spending by trying to convert a larger chunk of GDP into revenue, because people always adapt behaviors until it comes back to 19.5%;

- If you haven’t yet heard that, if uncut, our entitlement spending is expected to swell to more than 30% of GDP by mid-century;

- If you don’t appreciate that recessions reduce GDP and that tax increases only lengthen recessions;

- If you don’t understand that “loose monetary policy” and “low rates from the Fed” is another term for “printing money” even though no paper and ink is involved, because it increases the amount of dollars in circulations by “magically” inventing new dollars on the ledgers of major banks;

- If you don’t understand that “printing money” means that each dollar in circulation is suddenly (but not instantly) worth less;

- If you don’t understand that the words “but not instantly” in the preceding item mean that the first folk to get a newly “printed” dollar (read: the big banks) get the most value from it, but the people who use that same dollar later (read: individuals, small businesses, main street) find that it has dropped in value by the time it got to them and can’t buy nearly as much;

- If you don’t understand that, unlike Social Security, our biggest entitlement obligations are not fixed-dollar-amount payouts but are defined in terms of absolute benefits, which means that as we “print more money” so we can afford to meet our entitlement obligations, the price of meeting those obligations rises with the inflation caused by printing the money;

- If you don’t understand the why names like “Greece”, “Argentina”, and “The Weimar Republic” get mentioned in conjunction with “printing more money and its consequences” and how it is NOT crazy or disproportionate to bring those names up in discussing our fiscal future;

- If you don’t realize that while cuts to entitlements hurt people’s monthly income and thus the economy, having a collapsing economy and hyperinflation hurts FAR MORE and takes LONGER to recover from;

- If you don’t realize that when an economy collapses or experiences hyperinflation, the people hurt worst are those who dutifully saved money for a rainy day, especially (a.) the working poor and (b.) the elderly;

...then you do NOT yet “get” our situation sufficiently well to comment on it, on Obama and the Democrats’ role in worsening it, or on the Paul Ryan plan.

Those who DO understand all of the above are (a.) frightened for good reason, (b.) glad someone’s taking it as seriously as Ryan is, (c.) realize that even the Ryan plan cuts aren’t NEARLY big enough to reliably save us, and (d.) are wishing that the economic ignorance and political naivite of the American people could be sufficiently reduced so that Ryan’s half-way plan was understood to be the comparatively tame, possibly insufficient thing that it really is.

The plain fact is that, because of the realities listed above, there are no more revenues to be brought in through tax increases.

Yes, I agree that “the solution” will have to involve a mix of borrowed money, tax increases, and spending cuts.

But the reason that it’ll involve a mix of borrowed money is not because we can borrow any MORE. Nobody will lend us any, any more; we’ve already borrowed far too much relative to our GDP. It’ll involve a mix of borrowed money because we’re not going to reduce our spending enough to eliminate our borrowing entirely. The political will isn’t there. Even once the crisis is averted, we’ll still be in debt; just NOT such a dangerously HIGH level of debt.

And the reason that it’ll involve tax increases is not because an increase in income or sales or any other tax will actually bring in more REVENUE. It won’t; we’re already near the peak of the Laffer curve and we know it; all that will happen is that as we try to take a larger chunk of various kinds of income, overall GDP will continue to drop and people will change behaviors, so that we’ll be getting 19.5% of a smaller GDP. The ONLY purpose for tax increases as a part of our debt crisis is so that Democratic politicians can assuage their voters; other than that, they don’t actually help because they’ll bring in no additional revenue, long-term.

No, borrowing is useless but unavoidable, and tax increases are useless but unavoidable. All the actual improvement will come from spending cuts. That’s our least favorite option, politically speaking, but it’s the only option left.

Have you considered HOW BIG the cuts will have to be?

Look at the entitlements projections: Entitlements alone (along with their debt servicing costs) will grow to 30% of GDP by mid-century, give or take. But the most we ever get in revenues is 19.5% of GDP, give or take.

That means to solve this problem, entitlements alone need to drop by 5-10% of GDP by mid-century. And remember, entitlements by then will be around 30% of GDP. So that means they need to drop by somewhere between one-sixth and one-third of their planned spending.

Small wonder that the political will hasn’t been easy to find!

But, folks, it has to be done. Reality is what it is. Tax increases are useless because under these circumstances even the most draconian percentage rate increases will only bring in the tiniest trickle of increased REVENUE. And borrowing doesn’t work any more; no one’s willing to lend us any more. We’re broke.

I sure do hope folks wake up, stop demagogue-ing and cope with the problem realistically. Like, NOW. I don’t want my kids to have to experience what they’re likely to experience, if we don’t wake up.

Raymond ... a true Democrat is pro-life, pro-marriage, and reluctant to resort to war. Like the ones in the “Catholic Hall of Fame” for politicians ... http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/vote-for-greatest-american-catholic-politicians They are also “pro-Caritas in Veritate.”

Don’t forget the Republicans at the forefront of the same movements. Ronald Reagan, who later was a great president, put no-fault divorce and “therapeutic” abortion into law as California governor.

I know of no Republican who is “anti-Contraception” in any legislative way. Mitt Romney, of course, introduced “gay marriage” and “health-care mandates” into American law. I have heard no Republican promising to repeal the Welfare state, though Republicans should get the credit Clinton always takes for the Contract With America’s welfare reform.

The time is ripe. The over-the-top abortion and redefining of marriage package of the New Democratic party are not all that popular, even among registered Democrats (I’ll line up the numbers in the print version of this article.)

What kind of Catholics would be in such a party? Those whose beliefs match Blessed John Paul II’s and Pope Benedict XVI’s on war, the death penalty, the sanctity of human life, marriage and economics. I know we are few. :-)

What’s the alternative? Leave die-hard Democrats who have been lulled to sleep no alternative but to rationalize and keep voting for abortion? And this will do something different from what we have seen for the past several elections?

Dare to dream.

Maybe I’m dreaming too. But Democrats have changed before: On slavery and civil rights, most notably. With pro-life more popular than ever, and pro-choice more unpopular than ever, I’d say the time is ripe for them to change again.

Thanks again RC. I say time to put some light on the reality of our situation, let the light shine!  Book lights for all and let’s take some time to examine (as RC tried to do) exactly where we are as a nation and what sacrifices we will have to make.

@Tom Hoopes

“Maybe I’m dreaming too. But Democrats have changed before: On slavery and civil rights, most notably. With pro-life more popular than ever, and pro-choice more unpopular than ever, I’d say the time is ripe for them to change again.”

Boy, you certainly do love being “Democrat.”  Democrats haven’t changed on slavery or civil rights!  Republicans fought to save this country, and end slavery by having to fight the Democrats; and having won, the Democrats just took slavery to newer levels.  It was Republicans in Congress who voted for the ‘64 Civil Rights Act, and the ‘65 Voting Rights Act in larger percentages than Democrats. You think Democrat welfare programs have made blacks more independent, and their families stronger?!  70% of black babies born today are born with no fathers in their lives.  Wake up!  Our Church and our country are at stack in this election.  Jews are about to be annihilated again, this time by Iran with a nuclear bomb which they could have some time next month - and you are talking about starting some new Catholic Democrat party?  Democrat (Catholics) for Life had their events at the Democrat National Convention this year in a small hotel, with attendance of less than 40 people.  Forty people out of how many Democrat delegates there this year after 39 years of existence?  You ought to be spending all your time getting the kind of Catholics that you think still exist in the Democrat Party and give them copies of Raymond Nicholas and R.C. comments, and some of New Catholics, mine and some others.  You definitely should be given copies of these comments to priest you know, as well. 

We’ve got to save our Constitution, our county, Israel, if it is not too late, and the souls of those misguided Catholics, including the clergy who still are contributing to the murder of God’s greatest creation by giving their name identification and votes to the worst and most evil political party and President we ever had.

%Tom Hoopes

“Don’t forget the Republicans at the forefront of the same movements. Ronald Reagan, who later was a great president, put no-fault divorce and ‘therapeutic’ abortion into law as California governor.”

“I know of no Republican who is ‘anti-Contraception’ in any legislative way. Mitt Romney, of course, introduced ‘gay marriage’ and ‘health-care mandates’ into American law. I have heard no Republican promising to repeal the Welfare state, though Republicans should get the credit Clinton always takes for the Contract With America’s welfare reform.”

Tom, do you really want to compare cases you mentioned above to the Democrats’ record?

Join us in the only party that is pro-life, where we former Democrats found a home we can live in with joy and hope that in time our brother and sister Catholics, still buying the lies of the Democrat Party, will realize it is a waste of time, and caste their votes for God with us to elect a larger and stronger pro-life party at all levels of government, state and federal, to enact the Constitutional Amendment needed to save the lives of the future generations; that is, if we can defeat the leaders-of-death that Catholics were so instrumental in putting into power 4 years ago, enabling them to try and destroy not only our beautiful country and our lives, but our Church as well.

Stilbelieve ... Pro-abortion Democrats don’t want to see pro-lifers split the party. Neither do you. I disagree with you both!

Tom, how many “pro-lifers” are in the Democrat Party?

TH—I appreciate your response to my last email, but you certainly are a dreamer, and I do not mean that in a bad way. The modern Catholics mentioned in your link have not existed as a group since the 1970s, when Liberal Catholics (LCs) took control of implementing Vatican II, in addition to implementing both the Land o’ Lakes paper on Catholic education and the Kennedy compound initiatives that justified the divorce of private moral beliefs from public positions on the very same moral issues.  These three actions have had the effect of materially diluting “true” Catholic beliefs for generations of Catholics, setting in motion the split we have today inside the Church and the political divisions that logically follow. Wasn’t our Church supposed to universal, of one body in union with Christ, from age to age, east to west? Was the Holy Spirit meant to come upon us and inspire us to be divided between liberal and conservative factions—and make us think that the Words of Christ may be parsed into two separate meanings that satisfy our political urges or base human instincts? 
  These LCs within the DP are not “New Democrats” as you say; they are part of the “Old Establishment Democrats” of the last 40 years. I seriously doubt that a majority of Catholics in the Democrat party ascribe to your notion of being prolife AND pro-family AND anti-war.  Liberal Catholics gave Obama a tremendous assist in 2008 and it appears they will do so in 2012.
  Instead of day dreaming about what can never be, why don’t you shout from the highest mountain tops that LCs in the DP may well be jeopardizing their souls by knowingly and continually siding with politicians that favor the culture of death? That is, why not begin now and renounce the Kennedy Initiatives as a falsehood, encourage the restoration of Catholic higher education to Catholic moral principles, and goose our bishops, priests, and nuns to truthfully disclose to us pew-sitters the real truths of Vatican II and not what was co-opted and distorted by malformed and discontented progressives of the time?  Since you are a writer, it is these you can do, if you have the courage.
  BTW, I did not mention Republicans in my last post, and I wasn’t justifying voting Republican because of the moral rot found in the DP. I deplore the behavior of liberal or conservative Catholics anywhere they are found, IF they claim in public to be Catholic yet act contrary to the faith and moral teachings of the Church. Just to clarify, those teachings go back 2000 years give or take, and not just a few modern day popes and theologians.
  I wonder how many of your LC friends actually believe in the final four things? If you really wanted to start a new true DP with a Catholic underpinning, maybe you should institute a litmus test at registration, such as the loyalty statement that some local Churches are asking employees to sign, or use the one from Pope Leo. Maybe you will get more than ELEVEN to enlist.

Call it the Distributist Party.

stilbelieve: Fred Barnes reports in the Weekly Standard: “Grassroots Democrats, in contrast, have much in common with Republicans on abortion. As Kristen Day of Democrats for Life of America points out, one-third of Democrats are pro-life. ‘That means almost 21 million Democrats share this label,’ she says. And support among all Democrats for limitations on abortion is strong.

“Evidence of this comes from a Gallup poll in 2011. Among self-identified Democrats, 61 percent favor parental consent for underage females seeking an abortion, 60 percent back a 24-hour waiting period, 84 percent back informed consent prior to an abortion about the risks involved, and 49 percent support an ultrasound requirement.”

Tom, those stats are meaningless. How many of them support a COMPLETE ban on all abortions? You can’t be Pro Life unless you do.

In a 2003 CBS News poll (most recent I can find)

35% of Democrats want stricter limits,

21% say abortion should not be permitted.

For Republicans

29%—nearly 1 out of 3 Republicans—are pro-abortion, wanting abortion generally available (Democrats were 49% on that)

28% of Republicans want abortion banned.

So there are more pro-abortion Republicans than there are those who fit your definition of pro-life—and that “ban abortion” number is not dramatically different in the two parties.

@Darren Szwajkowski:

I’d like to believe there’s a plausible Distributist third way. I really would.

The difficulty I always have with the defenders of Distributism (as a preferable alternative to law-abiding, rights-respecting capitalism) is that they seem unable to offer examples of the kinds of policy changes which would bring Distributism about, and equally unable to offer examples of the kinds of policies which would preserve Distributism over the long term.

You see, Distributism is more a description of an end-goal than of a set of policies to achieve it. It says: “Here is the way the economy ought to look.”

I agree with the picture of the economy painted by Distributism; I think it really should look that way. But how to get there?

One thing we must remember is that it’s a fallen world peopled by imperfect persons, and that Heaven On Earth is an eschatological event which is brought about only by the Second Coming, and only on God’s timing; there is nothing we can do to establish perfection in this world.

So, to the degree that Distributism’s picture of “How Things Ought To Be” is a picture of an economy functioning as that economy would function after all its participants were purged of all imperfection, we can answer the question, “How can we get there?” quite simply: We can’t. We can only wait for the Second Coming.

But it may be that Distributism does not require perfect or radically better humans to achieve and maintain a stable state.

In that case we should be told which policies will move us towards that state, and which policies thereafter would preserve us in it.

But we are not told this. The only examples Distributists seem able to offer fall in two categories:

1. Microcosm Distributism, such as that produced when communities voluntarily form to produce cooperatives which have a Distributivist “look and feel” to their outcomes; and,

2. Transitional Government Policies intended to achieve larger-scale Distributivism by outlawing, regulating, or price-controlling certain corporate structures, industries, land usages, modes of production, or forms of ownership.

The difficulty I experience when seeing these two options is that the first is merely free-market capitalism as exercised by people making particular kinds of voluntary choices, and the second is merely socialism as exercised by a government intent on compelling particular kinds of voluntary choices.

For of course free-market capitalism permits folks to form communes and the employee-owned enterprises and everything else. If that is what is meant by transitioning to Distributism and living in Distributism, then of course our approach is clear: We are not permitted to use government force to compel everyone to become Distributist; instead, we must evangelize them, changing their hearts and minds until, thus convinced, everyone forms communes and employee-owned enterprises and guilds, thus voluntarily creating a Distributivist economy by the power of the marketplace.

But it is the concern that that voluntary process will take too long, which leads to the other option: Government compelling folk to only work in structures which outwardly resemble Distributivism.

The difficulty with that is twofold. First, a government is staffed by fallen humans, not angels. The humans we put in charge, no matter who they are, have neither the required information to regulate an economy in the direction of Distributivism, nor the requisite brainpower to process all that information even if they had it, nor the wisdom to know how to respond to the information after they had processed it, nor the goodness to be trusted with such regulatory authority when the opportunities for seeking their own gain through that authority would be so enormous, nor the humility to be able to recognize their own fallibility and reverse the inevitable mistakes they would make.

Furthermore, the dynamic of socialist economies noted by F.A.Hayek in The Road to Serfdom would increasingly come into play: When you define government as a group of people who have plenary authority over everyone else’s economic activities—which is to say, over what people are doing during at least 3/4ths of the waking hours of their entire lives—then you are giving a tiny group of people enormous power to be “busybodies” in everyone else’s lives. Persons who are wise and good typically are disinterested in this prospect, but persons who think they know better than their neighbors and who have the “will to power” are far more inclined to pursue regulatory power in such a government.

The more concentrated the power is, and the more directly forcible it is, and the weaker the culture of economic liberty in a given country is, the more rapidly such a system “sorts” candidates, causing the more power-hungry persons with the least humility about their knowledge and the greatest conviction that “normal rules don’t apply to them” to rise to the top. So in Russia, a country with no particular culture of economic freedom, when a highly centralized economy was adopted after the October Revolution, it was no surprise that the resulting government was tyrannical. British Socialism has been far less bad precisely because of the lingering culture of economic independence and the fact that the government is seen to have limits on its regulatory authority.

But that’s the problem with Distributivism when it is government compelled: The picture of equal distribution of ownership of economic enterprises seems noble, and it is noble if one merely hopes that people will voluntarily adopt the attitudes and behaviors which would produce it.

But we’ve seen nothing in the economic history of the world that resembled a Distributivist large national economy. Clearly, folk don’t (as a rule) spontaneously choose to govern their purchases and their business-formation in that fashion.

That implies an awful lot of government compulsion would be required to shove the economy in that direction. The regulators will need plenary authority; the information-gathering and -processing to keep it all operating is beyond conception. But that, as we have all learned to our sorrow, is exactly the same kind of utopian exercise that produces the grim gray Eastern European and Russian and Chinese Socialist dictatorships of the previous century. The bad cream rises to the top in such systems. The more extreme they are the faster it rises and the worse it curdles. And the kind of thing that could produce a large-scale Distributivist economy in our lifetime would have to be very extreme, very centralized, very command-and-control, indeed.

So that is the difficulty. I myself long for a Distributivist outcome, but there are only two ways of getting there: Allowing people to opt for such structures voluntarily through their own marketplace choices, or compelling them.

But the former is what we already have, as witnessed by the fact that Distributivist apologists can point to small-scale examples of Distributivist-like groups already existing. In that case little or nothing need be changed politically; it is only the hearts and minds of consumers that must be converted, so that they purchase and produce as angels would, not as fallen men.

And the latter, compulsory, route, would simply produce socialism, and eventually some dictatorships and susbidiarity-crushing bureaucracies all over again, and God would have to send us another Leo XIII or Pius XI or John Paul II to denounce it, all over again.

2003. Really Tom? That’s almost 10 years ago.

@ Tom
In regards to your comment on 2003 CBS News poll…Wow!  Where do people come up with these kind of numbers?!?  I mean if you look at where Dem / Rep. stand on abortion it shows how much baloney this really is!  I mean really, do you honestly believe that?

Dan and Rebecca M .... I found a more recent study, a NORC general social survey “verified on Jan. 11, 2012”) It doesn’t have all the same information, but it does say:

31% .... Republicans who say “Abortion should be legal in all circumstances”

Oops. Also:

47.6% ....Democrats who say “Abortion should be legal in all circumstances”

Tom,

Galllup Poll, May 23, 2012

Democrats 58% pro-abortion——34% pro-life

Republicans 22% pro-abortion——72% pro-life

Independents 41% pro-abortion—-47% pro-life

U.S. Adults 41% pro-abortion—-50% pro-life

Thanks, stilbelieve! 1 out of 3 democrats are prolife. Pretty significant indeed.

Tom, you want to purify the Democrat Party?  Get those 34% pro-life Democrats to become Independents and vote for the Republican Party.  Those votes would be very helpful for the 72% of Republicans who are pro-life.  If you could do that, we could pass the Human Life Constitutional Amendment that would ban legal abortions, if not getting Roe v. Wade overturned, first.  That would clean out the pro-aborts from your party, and you’d have what you want without all the effort of starting a whole new party that would always be a 3rd or 2nd runner-up.

The reason for getting them to be Independents is to get the attention of the Democrat Party leaders especially as we approach the next 10 year census which is vital in parties to know where to draw the new boundary lines for the House and State Legislative districts.  If they can’t find their base, they can draw lines that guarantee their party’s reelection.

Poor, sad Catholic Democrats, married to a party that hates you. Keep calling yourselves Democrats and telling your friends you just “walked into a door” or “fell against the coffee table”. Keep telling yourselves that after they kill babies, boo God, and strip you of your religious liberty, that they’re “really sorry” and they “won’t do it again”. After all, if you leave the Democrats where will you go? The Republicans don’t get you. They’re not as compassionate as you, right? They’re not as compassionate as the party that is totally cool with murdering babies.

But seriously, you Catholic Democrats are so right. Stick to your principles. All of the inner-city kids who can only get a decent education at Catholic schools will thank you when their schools close down because they couldn’t afford to pay the penalties for not providing contraceptive coverage. All the Catholics who have to close or sell the businesses that they spent decades building because they can’t pay the fines will thank you too. All the Catholic business owners who cave in and provide contraceptive care and can’t sleep at night as a result will thank you. All of the priests will thank you when their parishes get sued for not performing gay marriages. Israel will thank you if they still exist in 4 years. All the babies aborted in the mean time while you try to organize your True Democrat party that will never get more than 15% of the vote would thank you if they could.

Or maybe you could get down off your high horse and vote for the party that’s far from perfect but isn’t intrinsically evil.

Jenni -

Bravo! Bravo!

Jenni and Stilbelieve:  I think Jenni’s comments above contain all the makings of a GREAT “vote Republican” ad.  I think it would persuade Democratic Catholics to open their eyes. 
-There is nothing to gain by being too proud to vote Republican. It will not kill you to practice a little humility and join forces to vote down abortion, but it WILL continue to kill millions upon millions of unborn children.

Jenni, well said!

Tom -

I just read an article about the Pro-Life Democrats at the Democrat National Convention in which one of the State Presidents of Democrats For Life said there are 21,000,000 pro-life Democrats.  The person was disappointed that the platform committee was not willing to take any of their suggestions.  This person said they are getting warn out trying to change the party; and that person will be voting for Romney for President.

IF 2/3 of those pro-life Democrats are Catholic, and IF they registered out of the party to Independent or Decline to State AND voted for the pro-life party, the Democrat Party would HAVE to change their position on abortion and Roe v Wade or cease to have the political power to keep abortion on demand the law of the land.  If you worked for that to happen, you would THEN have your base for the Catholic Democrat Party you desire but you would first have to make the present Democrat Party pay the price for their refusing to.

The article said that in 1978 there were 125 pro-life Democrat Members in Congress; today there are 17.  Those Catholic Democrats are the only reason abortion on demand remains the law of the land.  If they would do what I suggested, they not only would be giving the gift of life to millions of future unborn babies who would have been murdered, but they would enable people like you to remake the Democrat Party freed of the intrinsic evil of abortion and other evils.

Just a small reminder-there is no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic.

Let’s get real for a change. If a “Catholic” Democrat votes his party for the sake of going along, then such a person is without understanding of the Catholic Faith. There is absolutley no equivalency in advocating a few progressive issues deemed to be “moral” by the DP which gives “balance” to the party’s pro-abortion stance. Gee, I think its OK to kill 1.2million unborn a year if we can just get that green energy thing going.

Thus, there are not an estimated 14million prolife Catholics in the DP, they just use the term like some nostalgic memory. The title means nothing if they do not follow the faith and moral teachings of the Church. If push comes to shove they are too ashamed or cowardly to take a stance. What you really have in the DP are former Catholics for whom religion is nothing more than government-run social services or advocating progessive (non-Catholic, immoral) rememdies to the ills confronting the world (like kill off the poor people in Africa with contraception paid for by the American people, that will solve all their poverty woes-from “Catholic” Melinda Gates). 

We belong to a Catholic parish in a retirement community in Florida. While my husband was driving home, I read the church bulletin. An article in the bulletin started out beautifully but then became disgustingly political. The article said that because so many young people fell for the Hope and Change in 2008, in reality it was “Hype and Lies.” You tasted “socialism” and have seen evil face to face. The article also called the 2008 election the “Great Lie.”

I plan to write to the priest and tell him why we are leaving the church. Politics have no place in church whether it be from the pulpit or the bulletin. If the church, any church, wants to be political, then they should give up their tax exempt status.

I couldn’t help but think that if the church is so against socialism, then the parishioners shouldn’t be driving to Mass on the socialist roads. Also, because it is a retirement community, most of the people are on SS and Medicare. On Monday I plan to go to the local Obama campaign office and volunteer my services, something I should have done before now.

Re-read this article. To support Obama right now is to support abortion—taxpayer-funded abortion—and a sustained assault on religious freedom, and endless war.

Give the bulletin a chance. Read it and try to understand where it is coming from. Don’t follow those who put more faith in a party than they do in the Church.

We are Catholics; we are for life; we are for religious freedom; we are for peace.

Nicely said, Jenni! An intermediate step should definitely be to disassociate oneself with the Democratic Party.

You confirm my decision to leave the Catholic Church altogether. I don’t want to be associated with Fascist Totalitarianism.

Really now spartan61, you sound like you were looking for a reason to vote Obama. Leave the Church because the priest was forthright in defending the Faith against the DP’s moral decline? A petulant child takes his football home because he got tackled too hard?

Hey, you fact-loathing Catholic, you blame liberals for everything, but did it occur there might be another reason for your erectile dysfunction?

If spartan61 means you are 61 or older you need to step back and reconsider what you are saying in print—not just before the public, but those looking down upon you from Heaven. It sounds like you are making a contract to go the other way. I’m a geezer too, and I really do not want to fail at my age; I’ve fought too long, and I’m still fighting sin day to day. Don’t be a namby-pamby; see your priest in person and duke it out. He may have said things in a way you don’t like, but it is the truth.

@Tom Hoopes

“...we are for peace.”  Peace at any price?

I don’t think “Spartan 61” is a Catholic.  I think “she” is a Democrat.  And I don’t think Spartan61 is even a “she.”

stilbelieve ... Of course not! I’m a Catechism Catholic. 2302 and following.

The massive cutbacks in social service programs like food stamps — anticipated by the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan — would leave more women in desperate straits and anxious about expanding their families.
.
Three-quarters of women who get abortions cite their worry about not being able to afford a child as a leading reason. The abortion rates in Holland and Germany are less than one-fourth that in the U.S. because women in those countries understand that their children will be cared for regardless of their mothers’ economic state.
.
The much bigger threat to push up the rate of abortion would be posed by Republican attempts to rescind Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Without the health reform, many more women would lose the pre-natal and post-natal care they count on and would feel unable to sustain a pregnancy — causing many to turn to abortion.
.
Stillbelieve: Your comments reveal more about you than about me. Some babies were dropped on their heads but you were clearly thrown at a wall. People may not guess about your brain damage if you control the slobbering.

Spartan61,

Thank you for confirming that you are a Democrat, and neither Catholic nor a woman.

Tom Loopes -

So you are referring to “peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral?”  You were not referring to war.

Stilbelieve, I said “2302 and following.” I believe in strictly following the Church when it comes to wide scale issues touching on the eighth commandment.
Sincerely,
Tom Loopes

Tom, “eighth commandment?”

I know a guy who could have been your dad, but the guy in front of him had exact change. You must have been conceived on a highway because that’s where most accidents happen. Your Mom was a hot 15 year old when she gave birth to you. You’re the left-overs from the abortion bucket.
.
It cost me five thousand dollars to look up your family history. A thousand to look it up and four thousand to hush it up.

TH, is 61s moderation overdue?

I must have gotten some good hits to have them send in their union leader boss to work me over.  I wonder how much these guys get paid to troll like this.  Probably not very much because they are turning people off more than converting or keeping ‘em on board.

I usually try not to feed the trolls.

But, just in case anyone thought this nonsense was correct…

“The massive cutbacks in social service programs like food stamps — anticipated by the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan — would leave more women in desperate straits and anxious about expanding their families.”

...please refer back to my earlier post about the status of entitlement spending’s projected growth relative to GDP, for remedial study. The short version is: Nobody will loan the U.S. government money any more, but entitlements are projected to grow to 30% of GDP while revenues have been shown to always remain around 19.5% of GDP for any long-term stretch (with peaks during boom times and troughs during recessions, which always average out to just under 20% of GDP). This means that entitlements by themselves—without military spending, without infrastructure spending, without federal law enforcement and judiciary, just entitlements—will bankrupt us by spending half again what our maximum long term federal revenues will be. To get just entitlements under budget (even if we leave no room for any other spending of any kind) will require cutting their projected spending by an amount equal to 10% of GDP or more…and because their total projected spending is 30% of GDP, that means a total cut of around one third.

One third, folks.

Ryan’s plan isn’t anywhere near as draconian as that; yet the plan we eventually adopt needs to have cuts that are somewhere close to that deep, or the country collapses in economic ruin. You see, if you can’t borrow any more, and you don’t have the money to pay for your stuff and can’t get more money, then the only “out” is to get rid of much of your stuff.

Spartan61’s accusation against Ryan’s plan—a plan which, when compared against any plan that would actually solve our problems, is so tame as to be within spitting distance of the Simpson-Bowles plan originally approved by Obama—reflects many fantastic assumptions about the way the world works. Among these assumptions are such gems as…

1. You can keep on spending more forever and never be forced to cut;

2. You can always, or at least usually, increase federal revenue merely by increasing tax rates, without it having any impact on GDP;

3. Increasing taxes during a recession will not in any way make it harder for the economy to climb out of a recession;

4. Increasing taxes will not cause the taxpayer to change their economic behaviors in response;

5. When the segment of the U.S. population that is most generous to poor people—which is to say, the right-of-center half, the half that votes for Republicans most of the time and gives 6.7% of their pre-tax income to charity as opposed to the 2.2% that left-of-center voters typically give—argues that it’s time to cut entitlement spending, it can only be because they hate poor people;

6. Increases in welfare spending add to, rather than displacing, the private charity benefits that the poor were previously receiving;

7. It doesn’t matter if increased spending produces Weimar Republic style economic collapse, because, after all, that never happens and if it does, poor people won’t be hurt by it; and,

8. We’re not already hanging by a thread which could be cut at any moment by the unraveling of the Euro, a worsening of the economy in China, or a hot war around the Persian Gulf.

Spartan61 is correct to say that “three-quarters of women who get abortions cite their worry about not being able to afford a child as a leading reason.” Of course, the government can’t afford those children either if everybody’s out of work. You see, 19.5% of GDP can be 19.5% of either a big number or a small number. If the GDP number is big, the revenue grows, and so long as all government spending stays under that number, there’s nothing to cause economy-destroying deficits.

But, the sad truth is, that we’ve been running huge deficits ever since they allowed the government to “borrow” from Social Security. This allowed Congress to increase spending without increasing taxes, by merely borrowing from the surplus funds in Social Security. That little Ponzi scheme could have gone on forever if every couple had continued getting married at 1950 rates, having an average of 5 children, and dying before age 65.

Unfortunately, the number of kids dropped to 2 or less, while the lifespans of retirees taking Social Security jumped up. As a result, the Social Security surplus is gone. Social Security now has to call in all those government I.O.U.‘s from Congress just to be able to afford to write tomorrow’s checks to retirees. And that means Congress can’t borrow from Social Security any more to finance spending that exceeds tax revenue.

So who’d they borrow from? The Chinese, mostly…but now China’s not buying any more U.S. debt because they can tell we can’t pay it back if they do. That well has run dry.

Only two options remain:

1. Cut spending (a lot); or,

2. “Print” dollars like there’s no tomorrow. Invent new greenbacks in circulation through ledger-entries with the major lenders so as to have enough money to cover the spending we want to do.

Those of you like Spartan61 who don’t want to cut spending are looking at Option #2 and saying, “Hey, that sounds pretty good!” No, folks, it doesn’t.

You see, the value of a dollar comes from its relationship to supply and demand of other things priced in dollars. The value of all the dollars in circulation is…how to simplify this? Let’s say that its always (roughly) proportionate to the value of all the things that anyone wants to buy with dollars, and the value of any single dollar is thus equal to the value of all the things anyone wants to buy with dollars divided by the number of dollars in circulation.

Of course that means that if you increase the number of dollars in circulation, then you’re determining the value of each dollar by dividing their total aggregate value by a larger number. Naturally that means the value of each dollar drops. As a result, you don’t have any more buying power than you did before. You have more dollars in circulation, but everything just costs proportionally more.

(For the serious economists out there: Yes, I know I’m leaving out velocity and a bunch of other things. Cut me some slack; this note’s long enough as it is and I’m not trying to explain this to a bunch of economists.)

Anyhow, this drop in dollar value (and corresponding rise in prices) is called inflation, folks, and in a stagnant economy (like the one created by the Obama administration’s anti-business policies—chief amongst which is Obamacare) they call it stagflation. Does the name Jimmy Carter ring a bell, anyone? Do I have your attention now?

Oh, and one more thing: Print more dollars, and you can cover your Social Security liability just fine because the government’s promise is to print each recipient a check for so-and-so many dollars. So the inflationary effect isn’t so bad, there.

But the real problem comes in with things like Medicare, where the entitlement is defined not as “you get so-and-so much money” but rather “you get so-and-so benefits and care.”

Remember that as you “print” more dollars, the price of everything goes up…including the price of the services provided through Medicare. So, if you “print” just enough dollars to pay for Medicare at today’s prices, you find that that wasn’t enough…the prices have all shot up beyond what you printed. So then you print more, thinking that surely you’ll cover it this time…only to find that once again the prices have shot up out of reach!

This is what’s called monetary structural inflation, and leads to an “inflationary spiral” producing what’s known as hyperinflation.

One effect of this is that it’s like everyone getting a pay cut every six months. Another effect is that $10,000 retirement savings suddenly can only buy what $5,000 buys now. Or $1,000. Or less. Everyone who’s on fixed income, all the old folk who thought they had enough put away to last until they died, are suddenly broke.

See, Republican Congresses contributed about 25% of this problem through excess military spending. And Democratic Congresses contributed the other 75% through entitlement spending. And the Social Security trust fund is now exhausted and China won’t loan us any more and there’s no more tax revenue to be had while we remain in recession, with suppressed GDP growth. (And increasing taxes won’t get us out of recession.)

And the reasons I just gave should be sufficient to scare everyone away from the dollar-bill printing press.

So our backs are against the wall. It’s either cut spending, by a lot (and entitlements are the biggest area of government spending, and the fastest-growing, so they’ll have to get cut the most), or one day creditors put a lock on the front doors of every government building, and the police and army aren’t getting their paychecks any more, and that’s all she wrote, folks.

Wake up. We are sinking. Obama’s been buying resplendent new deck chairs for the Titanic for four years now, and Spartan61 is angry at Paul Ryan for casually asking where the life-vests are.

R.C.

Well done!  Even I was able to understand it, and that surprised me!

“Since no one really knows anything about God, those who think they do are just troublemakers.” Rabia Al-Basri

Spartan61

You’re not talking about THE Ravia Al-Basri, regarded as the first female saint of Sufism, the mystical tradition of Islam, are you?  How interesting, more leads - you’re a Muslim.

Well said RC - Thank you for what you said and how you put it all together.  My family has a small business and your points are so true!  Lord help us in November.

And Spartan61, I do NOT agree with you points at ALL, but do you really think the way your saying things would do anything but totally turn someone off?  Or is that your intent?

R.C., well said. If you don’t mind, I’d like to know where you get your knowledge on this matter from. I’d like to quote you to some liberal I know and it would add credibility to my argument if I could cite my source.

Tom, isn’t it time to ban Spartan61 from this thread given their vulgar comments?

As a Catholic blog associated with the National Catholic Review, there should an enforced decency standard for postings.  The intention of this vulgar poster is to disgust people so they will stop reading this blog.
The poster has no interest in participating in the conversation, just ending it.
-I have seen the software filter on these blog boards change some words to numbers and characters….and yet an entire series of full-length postings of vulgarity and personal insults are allowed to remain on the site?  The policy should be to remove them the instant they appear.”
-The National Catholic Register needs to enforce posting guidelines before all the decent posters walk away forever.

ooops, meant to say “associated with the National Catholic REGISTER!”  I’m sorry, I am still working on my first cup of coffee.  I shouldn’t drive or post without at least one cup in my system!

R.C.

Glad you folks found my posts helpful.

If you want to look up the facts on GDP and federal revenue relative to it, the original numbers are from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) but their website is hard to navigate. You’ll find good reports that make this point at hoover.org, cato.org and heritage.org in various reports, and the principle is known as “Hauser’s Law” so you can look it up on Wikipedia, too. You can also Google for an article called “You can’t soak the rich” which references Hauser’s Law.

For a look at how Entitlement growth is outstripping potential Federal Revenues, look at the blog at Heritage.org, at the entry from August 25th, 2012, titled “Chart of the Week - Tax Revenues Devoured By Entitlements.”

Basically this is all known economic data, is my point. There’s nothing controversial about the figures I’m throwing out, except perhaps for the way in which I was simplifying certain things.

And, okay, I have to admit that I don’t THINK we’re likely to see Weimar-style hyperinflation. I don’t THINK we are, because I suspect that before that happened, we’d finally muster the political will to do something.

But I have to admit, I’ve been pretty astonished by this administration. It’s not just the disrespect for the Constitution, the limits of executive power. (And to think how critical I was of Bush about that!) It’s not just the “claim you’re being X when it’s perfectly obvious that you’re being Y” and how the mainstream media utterly refuse to call them on it.

It’s that anyone who knows squat about how small and medium-sized businesses run knows exactly why the economy hasn’t recovered as fast as it usually has. They know exactly why nobody’s taking advantage of the loans, the pent-up liquidity that’s pooled in the big banks with no-one daring to touch it. This administration is anti-business in a way that we haven’t seen since the 1930’s. Being as bad as Jimmy Carter is a BEST CASE SCENARIO at this point.

This economy will not recover until this administration and its Congressional allies are either out of office or else Obama receives a brain-and-life-experience transplant from a small-business entrepreneur whose dad was a banker and whose mom ran a flower shop. Romney’s not all of that, and there are less-than-ideal things about him, but he’s a darned sight closer to being what we need than a guy who scarcely ever had a paying job outside of academia, political activism, or elective office.

So, yeah, I don’t THINK it’ll be as bad as it could be. But that’s because normally I could trust the country to wise up and do something helpful before total meltdown occurred. With these folks in office, who knows?

I could not be a Catholic and a democrat. Your party is making us more equal-equally poor and miserable like in Greece.If you care about the poor you will do something youself. Not by taking pride in voting for the government to steal from your neighbor.

JFK said “a rising tide lifts all boats”. He cut taxes across the board including for the wealthy. He made huge increases in defense spending.

Hoover soaked the rich. It did not seem to help the poor.

democrats advocate killing the innocents. I am offended to hear that I am pro-war because I oppose your unilateral surrender by slashing defense spending.. If you pacifists had your way, we would be dead or slaves in a totlaitarian society. That is not peace. The democrat party of Obama is doing a good job of making us a totalitarian society anyway. Thank you democrats.

You tell em, Bill. We’ve spent over a trillion dollars on programs for the poor and guess what? We still have poor people. You’ve all heard the saying give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life. 47% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance. What happens when that number hits 51%?

Thank you for this article- you are going to walk into a quagmire whenever you say anything publicly that even hints at criticism of Republican party policies regarding economics, immigration, or foreign policy- of course the line is that these are prudential judgment issues, but most self-described “conservative” Catholics sure act as if they are completely correct in their assessment of how government should operate in these matters- even as they disparage or ignore the official and authoritative Church social teachings as detailed in such documents as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It is a lose-lose for me as a orthodox Catholic having to listen and read the ideologues on the left and right politically- I listen to the Pope and then I listen to the Republican heroes and I hear a serious disconnect for the most part in the worldview presented. I rejected the Democratic party due to the obviousness of the liberal embrace of abortion and the threat to the institution of Marriage and religious liberty, but I’m following the Pope’s advice from his last social encyclical to be “set free from ideologies” which oversimplify problems and solutions- and I’ve taken the path of Archbishop Chaput who was once a Dem and is now an Independent politically- Catholics do great harm to the Church’s standing and reputation when they embrace partisan politics and party loyalties to the detriment of following Christ as the Holy Spirit guides the Church in her social doctrine, and not Republican party leaders who play the usual political games of serving some set of special interests in order to raise money and stay in office- in short acting as fallen players in a fallen world- not really worthy of great praise or discipleship in my humble opinion.

Tim S -

You are full on, what’s a polite way of saying it?  You know nothing about being a Republican Catholic other than what you are toward by Democrat talking points.  I have one question to ask you prove your ignorance.  Do you support capital punishment?

Let me restate it.

You are full of, what’s a polite way of saying it?  You know nothing about being a Republican Catholic other than what you are told by Democrat talking points.  I have one question to ask you to determine your ignorance.  Do you support capital punishment; if no, or yes, why?

Oh, I should add another reference:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/dont-worry-romney-the-47-will-be-paying-income-taxes-soon-enough/

...is worth a look.

When would the True Democrats start?

Romney and Company smirk ...and smile ...and say to us:

TO HELL with all those “moochers” and “free-loaders”

receiving Medicare, or Veterans Benefits, or Pell Grants,

or Social Security, or Unemployment, or Medicaid, or Food Stamps, or on Disability,

Romney says TO HELL with all of us that are struggling to stay afloat,

to those in the Middle-class, and to those hoping to get there.

Romney says TO HELL with the hungry, the homeless, the helpless,

and the hopeless, ....to all the biblical “least of these”.

Romney says TO HELL with the “47% of America”—the “losers”

that Romney so easily dismisses and disrespects as “dependents”.

Romney wines… INCREDIBLY ...that we’re shamelessly sponging off of him,

and off of all of his poor-poor-poor super-rich friends

.....all those super-rich folks who want to BUY this ELECTION,

.....all those super-rich folks who want to BUY this COUNTRY.

Trickle-down economics? Hey, sure , let them eat cake. It’s all the same. Always has been.

It’s crumbs for us, and Cadillacs and car elevators, and loopholes & lower taxes for them.

That is, if they, and the bailed-out banks, and the big corporations pay ANY taxes at all….

If THEY get a break- they deserve it. But If YOU get a break, it’s a handout. BULL!

Tell me - who are the REAL “takers”, who are the REAL creators,

who are the TRUE workers and builders?

Who are the REAL “victims” here?

Who gave their LIVES and limbs ...in unpaid and un-needed wars?

Whose sweat, .....on whose brows, has BUILT this great country?

Was it the Romney’s of this world ...or us?

But we still have a voice. It’s called our VOTE.

Loud and Clear—Just say NO.

Say NO to Romney & Company ...and what they stand for.

This is STILL our country. Our children’s country.

And we mean to KEEP it that way. Period.

True Democrat, please reference one single Romney, or any other Republican quote, that backs up your statements.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney says in one clip. “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”
.
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his “job is not to worry about those people.”

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he added. “What I have to do is convince the 5 percent to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful.”
.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/

Uh, what he says is the truth. 47% of Americans get some kind of government assistance. Of course they’re not going to vote for him because he’s going to see to it that only the people who truly NEED assistance get it.

And when he says “his job is not to worry about those people”, he is talking about campaigning to them. Why worry about trying to get someone to vote for you when you know they won’t?

I’m not going to fall for your liberal spin.

True Catholic

I thought we 99%ters are victims, not just the 47%.

Apologies if this has already been posted.  There is currently one possible political party that is anti-abortion, supports traditional marriage / does not support gay or same-sex marriage, and believes in families and the Constitution.  Including strong stance for religious freedom.  In New York, take a look at the NY Conservative Party (www.cpnys.org), and nationally (with various state affiliates), www.conservativepartyusa.org.

“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” says Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.
A half dozen fact-checking organizations and websites have refuted claims by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan that President Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law and will cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion. The New York Times even reported that Romney has been “falsely charging” Obama with removing the work requirement.
USA Today calls the Romney campaign’s claim that Obama has “funneled” money out of Medicare to pay for the federal health care law a “false line of attack” that’s directly contradicted by Medicare’s chief actuary. “Medicare’s money isn’t being taken away,” the paper concludes.
Notwithstanding these refutations, the Romney campaign continues to make these charges.
Most political campaigns are guilty of exaggeration. Some distort the truth. But rarely if ever has one resorted to such bald-faced lies - even after they’re shown to be lies.
Presumably the Romney campaign continues to make these and other false claims because they’re effective, swaying previously undecided voters Romney’s way. But this raises a more basic question: How can these false claims remain effective when they’ve been so overwhelmingly discredited by the media?
The answer is that the Republican Party has developed three means of bypassing the mainstream media and its fact-checkers.
The first is by repeating big lies so often in TV spots - financed by a mountain of campaign money - that the public can no longer recall (if it ever knew) that the mainstream media and its fact-checkers have disproven them.
The money is the result of a series of court decisions and regulatory changes, beginning with the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Fully a quarter of the $350 million amassed by super PACs through the end of July came from just 10 donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks such spending. And most of that money is financing negative ads targeting President Obama and other Democrats.
Several hundred million more is being gathered by political groups masquerading as nonprofits, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Because of a loophole in IRS regulations that allows these donors to remain secret, big corporations and Wall Street banks can contribute as much as they want without even their own shareholders knowing how much or to whom.
The second means the GOP has developed to protect its mistruths is discrediting the mainstream media - asserting that it’s run by “liberal elites” who can’t be trusted to tell the truth. “I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans,” Newt Gingrich charged at a Republican debate in January in what has become a standard GOP attack line.
To be sure, the mainstream media hasn’t always called it correctly. Initially it bought the Bush administration’s claim that there were “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. But the mainstream media is at least committed to professional standards that separate truth from fiction, seek objective facts, correct errors and disseminate the truth.
The third means the GOP uses to protect itself is its own media outlets - led by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and his yell-radio imitators, book publisher Regnery and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, along with a right-wing blogosphere. Even if these outlets don’t spread the lies directly, they can at least spread doubt about what’s true.
Together, these three mechanisms are creating a parallel Republican universe of Orwellian dimensions, where anything can be asserted, where pollsters and political advisers are free to create whatever concoction of lies will help elect their candidate and where “fact-checkers” are as irrelevant and intrusive as is the truth.
Whether all this helps the Republican Party in 2012 is of less consequence than the larger danger it poses to America. Democracy cannot thrive when truth becomes irrelevant. To the contrary, history teaches that this is how demagogues take root.
The Romney campaign has decided it won’t be dictated by fact-checkers. But a society without trusted arbiters of what is true and what is false is vulnerable to every lie imaginable.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/reich/article/How-Republicans-reinforce-campaign-of-lies-3850026.php#ixzz279LXHLph

Eager to shoot down President Obama’s legislative agenda just weeks before the election, Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure that would have provided $1 billion over five years to help veterans find work in their communities.

The measure, which would have potentially created jobs for up to 20,000 veterans, was blocked on a procedural point by Republicans, who argued that the bill was unpaid for. Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the bill’s main sponsor, said the bill would have covered the costs in part with fees on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills.

The procedural vote was 58 to 40; 60 votes would have been required to waive Republican objections.

The bill was opposed, by, among others, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who said he believed the bill duplicated existing job programs for veterans that are not well run, and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who has been seeking amendments on bills that would cut off funding to Egypt and to Pakistan until Pakistan freed Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin Laden.

“It’s both shocking and shameful that Republicans today chose to kill a bill to put America’s veterans back to work,” Ms. Murray said in a statement.

“At a time when one in four young veterans are unemployed,” she said, “Republicans should have been able, for just this once, to put aside the politics of obstruction and to help these men and women provide for their families.”

She added that the vote was “stark reminder” that Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader from Kentucky, and Senate Republicans “are willing to do absolutely anything to fulfill the pledge he made nearly two years ago to defeat President Obama. It doesn’t matter who gets in their way or which Americans they have to sacrifice in that pursuit, even if it’s our nation’s veterans.”

Some Republicans, five of whom voted for the bill, also seemed disappointed about the failure of legislation that had the veneer of bipartisan support. “These men and women have worn our uniform, shouldered the burden and faced unthinkable dangers in forward areas during a very dangerous time,” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said.

The vote was met with a strong rebuke from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Once again, this Congress let partisan bickering stand in the way of putting thousands of America’s heroes back to work,“ said Paul Rieckhoff, the organization’s founder. “Lowering veteran unemployment is something both parties should be able to agree on – even in an election year.”
.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/veterans-jobs-bill-blocked-in-the-senate/
.
Veterans of America are part of the “47%” Romney “doesn’t care about.” So are Seniors, low-income workers, children, and even the unborn children you care so much for—because there will be no health care for them under Romney.
.
Romney will also go that extra mile to lie to people—
http://gawker.com/5944931/mitt-romney-dyed-his-face-brown-to-appeal-to-latino-voters

But, True Democrat, we are all victims - we’re in the 99%.  Isn’t that what the 99% is all about - victims, and coveting the 1% earnings even more than they are already paying?

Boy, you sure are a True Democrat.

“Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure that would have provided $1 billion over five years to help veterans find work in their communities.”

Why do the taxpayers have to give Obama and the Democrats another billion dollars to “help” veterans to find work in their communities?  The only people who are going to find work are the democrats the government will hire to “help” those veterans find jobs that Obama is killing on the back end. This is Chicago politics which ends up with a City Council like Chicago’s that is comprised of 50 Wards, with ALL FIFTY WARDS having DEMOCRAT Representative - not a single Republican on Chicago’s City Council. 

What jobs is Obama “killing on the back end?” Show some facts instead of shooting off Republican Tea Bagger crap.

True Democrat, are you against abortion?

I know your mother was against abortion, but now I’m sure she supports infanticide!

When I was a devout Catholic and Christian I held Mormons to be heretics. They teach a Gospel that is contrary to that of Jesus and is not the one revealed to Paul. I still use this argument to the Mormons that ring my bell. I drive them away as a militant Catholic should do.
/
If you are a Christian of any denomination, Catholic or Protestant you should be aware that Romney fits the mold cast in the New Testament for the Anti-Christ. He is at the very least, a “false prophet”.
/
Don’t believe me? Read what the Bible has to say:

/
Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8 - “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

Without the right to life, you’ve got no moral authority.

So you’re God now?

@True Democrat

“What jobs is Obama “killing on the back end?” Show some facts instead of shooting off Republican Tea Bagger crap.

Here are low bow facts.  “Then add in the 9.3 million part-time workers who preferred full-time, and the total number of underemployed was 27.4 million, which created a “real” unemployment rate of 17.5%. This was very high, and may have given a better appraisal of the true state of employment in the U.S. during the recession.”

...make that low ball facts.

Mmm.

So, if Romney doesn’t care for the poor and needy, why is it that, on average, he gives 10-15 times as large a percentage of his own pre-tax income to the poor and needy as President Obama does?

So, if right-wingers don’t care for the poor and needy, why is it that, on average, they give twice as high a percentage of their own pre-tax income to the poor and needy as left-progressives do?

Left-progressives like to create government programs because:

(a.) It’s very public, so men celebrate them for doing it;

(b.) It’s fire-and-forget; once a policy is in place they feel they’ve discharged their obligation to the poor and needy and can get on with life;

(c.) They can get positions in the administration and distribution of funds, usually very secure ones with good benefits;

Right-wingers and libertarians in the U.S. don’t care for government programs because:

(a.) They undermine the lower-order subsidiarities which are required for human flourishing in underprivileged communities, from the family to the church to the neighborhood;

(b.) They create a sense of dependency, entitlement, resentment, and undermined dignity in the recipient;

(c.) They create a sense of resentment and oppression in the taxpayer;

(d.) They foster or exacerbate class warfare;

(e.) They corrupt the political process;

(f.) They displace private almsgiving in the short-term and undermine a community’s culture of private and neighborly mutual help in the long-term.

And, none of that matters.

None of it.

Because we can no longer afford the levels of entitlement spending we’ve reached, let alone the 2050 projections. We can’t print any more money through banks and lending—it’s like pushing on a string, and if it ever takes hold the already noticeable inflation will skyrocket. We can’t borrow any more money because nobody believes we can pay it back. We can’t extract enough money to pay for all our spending because the economy adapts to every new tax scheme and returns to mean; around 19.5% of GDP. With entitlement spending projected to reach 30% by mid-century and GDP falling, we are looking at adding an amount equal to 10% of our GDP to the debt every year.

Every year.

Federal spending overall will need to drop from its projected levels by at least a third. And entitlements are the largest segment of the budget; you simply cannot cut enough to start reducing the deficit unless you cut them by a quarter or more. Oh, sure, military and everything else will also have to be cut, and even if that weren’t an arithmetical necessity it’d be a political necessity just to give petulant Democrat congresscritters a win to take home to their constituents. But if entitlements aren’t seriously cut, then shutting down the entire military of the U.S. wouldn’t be sufficient to slow the ascent of the deficit. You could reduce military, judiciary, infrastructure, everything but entitlements, all down to zero and still the entitlements alone would exceed the 19.5% of GDP that we can plausibly expect to collect as Federal revenue.

So it doesn’t matter that left-progressives have dishonest motivations and, to judge by their private voluntary behavior, usually don’t give a frog’s fat fanny about the needy.

It doesn’t matter that right-leaning folk have excellent arguments against the whole subsidiarity-squelching, faux-solidarity failed experiment of the welfare state. It doesn’t matter that, as a rule, they’re the most generous folk to those in need, as judged by what they choose to do voluntarily. It doesn’t matter that logic and evidence are on the side of the conservatives.

Those principled arguments won’t ever be really addressed, let alone resolved, because the left won’t admit that the state is their religion and a false and damning one at that. That would require a conversion of heart, an admission of error. Let’s not hold our breath.

But none of that matters, because when you can’t pay, and you can’t borrow to help pay, and you can’t inflate your way out of paying, then…it’s over, and the arguments don’t matter a whit.

Economic collapses hurt the poor worst. Democrats have a choice: Follow their leader over the cliff, lemming-style, and see the poor hurt worst as the economy falls apart, or turn back at cliff’s edge by deeply cutting entitlements. All our backs are against the wall.

  Just a small reminder to Catholic posters. Remember the meaning of a vow, that of a solemn or earnest declaration.  It can also refer to an assertion, claim or profession of some kind. You do not need to use the term “vow” when making a vow to know that it has been made.  I believe that in making one’s thoughts known publicly it is an affirmation of strong personal belief, like a vow, but not just to other human beings.  It is also to God looking down upon us and all the angels and saints.
  Among the spiritual works of mercy it is asked of Catholics that we admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant.  I take this as first and foremost, as a duty of Catholics to other Catholics.  Catholics who protest these actions are making a choice, and to a possible judgment at the end of days that scares the heck out of me. They claim that such assertions are not intended for the sake of their souls, but for power, mind control (denial of conscience or free will), or any other unsavory reason they can think to rationalize their opposition like, “Catholic bishops and priests hate women and gays.” This is a false notion. They reject the teachings of the Church on faith and morals and say in effect, “I am a church of one and I can make up my own mind. I do not need the Sacraments; I do not need grace; I do not need to be told anything.” This also is a false notion. It is nothing more than pride.
  Allow me to wander off track with an idea. Back in the very old days of Our Lord and the apostles, humans were lucky to live to fifty. In the US the average lifespan is near eighty. Take that thirty year age difference and just for a moment think of it as a reprieve from death, that is, we should already be dead and judged but we have been given the chance to live thirty more years. In that time, know that God gives us want we want, as He will at our death.  Will we be experiencing, by choice and in advance of Judgment Day, “a walking Hell” or “the glory of Heaven?” 

In an earlier post, I mentioned the comparison between Obama’s charitable giving and that of Mitt Romney. I mentioned it in the context of the larger studies showing that right-of-center folk in America are twice as generous with their charitable giving as left-of-center folk; that, in short, people on the right care more.

For those wanting the specific numbers about Mitt & Ann Romney’s charitable giving, they are:

ROMNEY’S RECENT TAX FILINGS AND CHARITABLE GIVING: From the newly-filed 2011 Tax Return:

-In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

-The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%. (For lower-income folk who wonder why this is a lower rate than they’d expect, remember that most of it is investment income and falls under the capital gains tax rate rather than the wage-income tax rate. The capital gains tax rate is lower for various reasons; e.g., because investments are purchased using money that was already taxed once when it was first earned as a wage. The portion of the Romneys’ income which was wage-related was of course taxed at the highest rate.)

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011. This was about 30% of their pre-tax income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. This means the Romneys didn’t even take as big a deduction as they could have, and ended up paying about $300,000 more in taxes than they would have had they been deducting their charitable giving fully.

THE LONGER TRACK RECORD: From the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:

-In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%. (The lower-rate years were years in which more income came from investment income; the higher-rate years were those in which wage-income predominated.)

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).

Oh, and lest we forget the record of the Obama Administration on tax-dodging and cheating, let’s point out that, throughout the whole 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

What is there to say?

The Romneys are a well-to-do couple. Mitt’s a beyond-excellent breadwinner for his family.

So, bully for him; but look beyond that and note the charitable giving. Did this guy ever do less than tithe on his pre-tax income? It doesn’t look as if he did. It looks as if he took the view that the extra income with which he was blessed was for a purpose; namely, taking care of others who had less. And Mitt seems to have been entirely faithful at using that income generously for the needy, instead of withholding it for himself.

Could he have given away more than 30% of his pre-tax income? Well, yes: It’s not as if he’d have starved if he went to 40% or 50%.

But, when you compare that against the Obamas, with their 1%-ish record?

I know who I regard to be the better steward of his blessings, and to have shown more compassion and generosity towards his fellow man.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. And if you evaluate Mormon teaching you find that it’s not Trinitarian. Their theology is wack. And they have an extra book of scriptures devised by a con-artist.

Fair enough. But with respect to this particular man, Mr. Mitt Romney, my judgment is that despite the theological groaners and historical groaners found at the core of his religion, he is a good man. Not perfect, and his early track record on life issues is shakier than, say, a G.W.Bush or Rick Santorum, although Romney seems to have improved in that category. But still: A good man. That’s sadly rare among people who run for elective office at the national level.

I still wish we could play Mr. Potato Head with Romney. I still wish we could give him Santorum’s pro-life credentials (and Catholicism), Herman Cain’s “happy warrior” demeanor, Newt Gingrich’s debating skills and fearlessness. Frankly, because some Americans are so shallow about skin color and ethnic identity, I wish we could mix some Hispanic and Black blood into that lily-white Ken Doll appearance of his, so that those who resent him for it could get over their resentments. (Another instance of the banality of evil: How boring, how tiresome all the petty racial and ethnic resentments have become.)

But Mitt Romney is not astronaut Steve Austin. We can’t rebuild him. We don’t have the technology. He’s the six-million dollar man, at least, but he has no superpowers. Still: A good man, who is also a competent man, is running for president. The alternative is a man who, sadly, has turned out to be neither particularly good nor particularly competent.

Putting it in that perspective, it’s kinda hard to understand why this race is even competitive.

Part of the reason for the high rate of giving is Romney’s contributions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church. According to the church, members are expected to tithe 10 percent of their income. In Romney’s case, in 2010 he gave $1.5 million, closer to 7 percent of his adjusted gross income. In 2011, he gave $2.6 million, or 12.4 percent of his income.

But Romney and his wife also gave a considerable amount of money – some $1.5 million in 2010 and $500,000 in 2011 – to other charities, mainly through the Tyler Charitable Foundation, apparently named for a street Romney and his wife lived on in Belmont, Mass. In 2010, the foundation had more than $10 million in assets.

In 2010, the largest beneficiaries of the Tyler Charitable Foundation included the Mormon Church ($145,000), the Friends of George W. Bush Library ($100,000), and the Center for Treatment of Pediatric MS ($75,000). However, the foundation also made contributions to organizations including the US Equestrian Team Foundation ($10,000), Harvard Business School ($10,000), and Homes for Our Troops ($20,000).

In past years, some of Romney’s contributions have gone to conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Becket Fund (for religious rights legal aid), and the Federalist Society,
.
He didn’t give to Catholic Charities, so he is spreading the religion of the infidel! His holy book, however, isn’t the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Romney’s holy book is Atlas Shrugged and he believes he is John Gault.

@Tom Hoops—God is my only judge.

Yes, “True” Democrat. God is your only judge. And you are everyone else’s!

You’re the one who said I wasn’t a “moral authority” even though I didn’t claim to be one:
/
“Without the right to life, you’ve got no moral authority.”
/
FYI—You are not the Pope!

TD, let me suggest these three steps.

1. Lash at the audacity of Pope Tom the Fanatic.

2. Ponder that doubt that’s already gotten under your skin ... “What if the unborn do have the right to life?”

3. Since I’m not God, say this prayer to God Himself: “Please change the hearts of these anti-choice fanatics who are hurting women. Or open my heart to change if need be.”

Tom—you may look like and idiot and write idiotic sermons, but you don’t fool me—you ARE and idiot. (paraphrased from Groucho Marx, but appropriate to you)
.
The unborn have a right to life, but the un-conceived are not under Catholic authority, no matter what your ex-Nazi Pope declares. Also, mothers have the right to life as well. Would you kill your own mother?

No. I wouldn’t kill my own mother. And she wouldn’t kill me. And from her I learned not to kill the smallest among us.

We know more about unborn life than ever before. We see our children first in utero. We know more about the unborn today than ever before. The public is turning against the killing.

Love is a balm that transforms our hearts. Yours is bitter, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Stand for the helpless; stand for love.

Has anyone noticed that most of the people who think they have “moral authority” are wealthy, unattractive males who despise sex, yet can’t get enough of it?
.
They think they are moral authorities, but they are only compensating for their inadequacies.

@True Democrat

“Has anyone noticed that most of the people who think they have “moral authority” are wealthy, unattractive males who despise sex, yet can’t get enough of it?

You shouldn’t talk that way about Hollywood and Democrat leaders, they’re not here to defend themselves.

@stillbelieve:
Good come back—no one will guess about your lobotomy if you wear a wig to hide the scares and control the slobbering.
.
TH and stillbelieve—You and your ilk claim to represent God for everyone else. So did Hitler and Stalin. You think you are hot sh*t, but you are only warm turds.
.
You obviously have no sense of smell, or you would know your sh*t stinks.

I think you would kill your mother, sister, daughter, cousin, aunt, or any other woman who’s life was endangered by her pregnancy.
.
Tell me—do you say a prayer for the unborn in used tampons or wet dreams?
.
Were you born a maniacal, God-misappropriating hatemonger or did you just eat paint chips as a kid?

Wow!  You ARE a True Democrat.  Any Catholics following this thread, you are seeing the real heart and mind of a true Democrat.  Do you really want to vote for anybody in the Democrat Party?  Do you really want to be associated with such hearts and minds?

stillbelieve—as you are obviously a spawn of incest, there is no point in dealing with you. The only brain in your skull belongs to the fly buzzing around in it.
.
TH—why do you think you can dictate who has moral authority? You are a legend in your own mind, but no one else gives a damn
.
Even if you were the Pope, this is a secular country and people are supposed to be free to worship whichever god they choose, or not worship anything if they don’t believe there is anything to worship.
.
You’re acquitting yourself in such a way that no jury ever would.

These thoughs come to mind when I read True Democrat, some of which are in today’s Mass readings:
Wisdom, Book 2
1For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:
“Brief and troubled is our lifetime;
there is no remedy for our dying,
nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.
2For by mere chance were we born,
and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been;
Because the breath in our nostrils is smoke,
and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts,
3And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes
and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.
4Even our name will be forgotten in time,
and no one will recall our deeds.
So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,
and will be dispersed like a mist
Pursued by the sun’s rays
and overpowered by its heat.
5For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow;
and our dying cannot be deferred
because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.
6Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are here,
and make use of creation with youthful zest.
7Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes,
and let no springtime blossom pass us by;
8let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.
9Let no meadow be free from our wantonness;
everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment,
for this is our portion, and this our lot.
10Let us oppress the righteous poor;
let us neither spare the widow
nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time.
11But let our strength be our norm of righteousness;
for weakness proves itself useless.
12Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us;
he opposes our actions,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.
13He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15Because his life is not like that of others,
and different are his ways.
16He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the righteous
and boasts that God is his Father.
17Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him in the end.
18For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19With violence and torture let us put him to the test
that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.
20Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to?
You will never find the life for which you are looking.
When the gods created man
they alloted to him death,
but life they retained in their own keeping.
As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things;
day and night, night and day, dance and be merry,
feast and rejoice.
Let your clothes be fresh,
bathe yourself in water,
cherish the little child that holds your hand,
and make your wife happy in your embrace;
for this too is the lot of man.’

Are Hispanics and “minorities” are beginning to see the futility of constantly voting Democrat?  (This post is a bit long.  Sorry.)

***  Below is a press release by Hispanic Ministers:

September 25, 2012

For Immediate Release

Hispanic Ministers to Start A “Non-Democrat/Non-Republican Campaign” for the general election

A group of Hispanic Ministers, led by New York State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz will meet on Thursday, September 27, 2012 from 9:30 am to 11:00 am at 1437 Longfellow Avenue (between Jennings and Freeman Avenues) in the Bronx to discuss plans to start a “Non-Democrat/Non-Republican Campaign” for the upcoming general election that will be conducted on Tuesday November 6th.

Senator Reverend Diaz stated: “We deserve representation! Both parties have failed us, and both parties have taken us for granted. Enough is enough. The purpose of this campaign is to ask our communities to vote in the Conservative Line, as a protest for what both parties have done to our communities.”

For further information, please contact Senator Reverend Diaz at (718) 496-4793.

The press is welcome.

*** Below is a letter to neighbors, friends and family from the aformentioned NY State Senator Diaz:

What You Should Know
By Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz
32nd Senatorial District, Bronx County, New York
Tel. 718-991-3161

Not Democrat, Not Republican … We May Be Better off Voting on the Conservative Line

You should know that the majority of people in the minority community identify themselves as members or followers of the Democratic Party. During election time, most minorities vote Democrat regardless of what the purpose, plans, agendas, ideologies or beliefs of the actual candidate may be.

All that our minority community seems to be interested in, regarding any candidate is knowing if the candidate is a Democrat because they will never vote for a Republican. They think that the Republicans are the devils. That was the case of the late Senator Olga Mendez. Our community chose to lose one of the better and more dedicated public servants we ever had instead of voting for her as a Republican.

Since our community doesn’t like Republicans, all what a Democratic candidate has to say is: “I’m a Democrat,” and then blame the Republicans for all the wrongdoing in the world.

On the other hand, you should know that the Republicans do not spend resources or pay attention to us because they think they’ll never get our minority community to vote for them. All the Republicans need to do is remember what happened to Olga Mendez, and how after 30 years of faithful service to our community, she changed her enrollment to Republican, and lost the election.

Now Mitt Romney, the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate appears to have given up his pursuit of the Hispanic and minority vote. He has given up on us, suggesting that since he will never get our vote, he’s not interested in or cares about us.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the big dilemma of our community.
When the Democrats get elected, they don’t actually help our community, but instead, cut our services – like Governor Andrew Cuomo did – and take us for granted by saying: “We don’t have to worry too much about solving their problems or protecting them because they are Democrats and they will always vote Democrat.”

When the Republicans get elected they say: “Why help them? Why bother investing in their communities? Why bother visiting their communities or spending resources on them? They are Democrats and they will never vote for us.”

You should know that out of the five counties in the City of New York, only one is controlled by Republicans: Staten Island. The vast majority of elected officials in the other four boroughs are Democrats. We should ask ourselves: “Why is it that the areas controlled by Republicans are better served, better protected, and cleaner - yes, the streets are cleaner! – than areas that are controlled by Democrats?” Republicans continue to ignore us. In national races they aren’t even interested enough to campaign in our areas.

On the other hand, when Democrats get elected they balance the budget in the backs of our community, cut our services, close senior citizen centers and hurt the poor and the needy and blame the Republicans for it, knowing that we will always vote Democrat.

Last year, people of faith – Jews, Muslims and Christians (Catholic and Protestants) – saw how the Democrats and Republicans, led by Governor Andrew Cuomo, forced same-sex marriage laws on us.  I believe that the moment has come when we need to stand firm and protect our communities, our beliefs and our principles.

In this upcoming election on Tuesday November 6th, we need to send a message to the State of New York and to the entire nation. Enough is enough – not Democrats, not Republicans, we might be better off voting on the Conservative Line.

Our commitment to our faith, beliefs and our religions, force us to work for the betterment of social, spiritual, economic, moral and educational conditions of our communities – once and for all, we need to stop allowing people to take us for granted.

I am State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and this is what you should know.

***  We should all be thinking Third Party or new party.  Maybe the Conservative Party in New York can be a template for us.  ***

Form a Catholic Party!?!?

Idiot.

“The time for tolerance is past.”  So “tolerance” is what you called pulling the lever for Pelosi in the past?

Buy a dictionary and a spine (not in that order)

Tom Hoopes thank you for starting this ‘truth seeking’ discussion.  I am one who has voted pro-life and pro-opportunity (free enterprise) for 40 years.  (which means over 95% of the time or more; Republcian )  and believe the ‘left leaning’ revisionists have seriously corrupted our secular media and sadly misled our bishops,  parish priests and catholic education. 

It was heartening to read the thoughtful but ‘truth seeking’ considerations of ‘Stillbelieve’,  Vance,  New Catholic,  the Hat Lady,  Bob Rowland, Maria, Rich, TW, Reggie, R.C., and Raymond.  (please forgive my omission of others, not read,  in the 2nd half of this dialogue….) 

It is my hope that we will pray and work together in 2013 to stand for life from conception to natural death,  religious liberty,  consicence protection,  and end to immoral borrowing and spending.  (6 billion a day ?! ) 

See you on Jan 5th,  this Thursday, at support Hobby Lobby day?  and read some of your letters to the editor about the criminal Obama/Sebilius fines on the likes of the Little Sisters of Poor?  Franciscan Universsity? or even moderate/liberal Notre Dame?  (to name just a few )

I too am pro-life and pro-opportunity (free enterprise). That is why I left the Republican Party after GB Sr lied about no new taxes and the party has only gotten worse since. What does it mean to be “Republican” when Speaker Boehner is selected by his REP peers to be one of the highest ranking REPs in office? - From my perspecitve, the country has degraded to a one-party system: the BIG GOVERNMENT party. I’ve been registered Libertarian (Choice without Victims) for over 20 years but did take the time to re-register REP to vote for Ron Paul in the presidential primaries. I’ll keep praying for peace and prosperity… May God bless you in this new year!

“A Nation that kills it’s own children, is a nation without hope”  (Pope John Paul II).  We already reap what we sow. After all, aren’t all terrorists merely exercising their right to choose to kill you?  War is a punishment for Sin said our Lady of Fatima. If you don’t want war, don’t sin.  Otherwise, don’t complain.  Again War is a punishment for sin.  If you have ever participated in the killing of Jesus in the least of His brethren, confess and spend the rest of your life making amends by saving other children God has created that are threatened by this totalitarian government. 

What does a Nation without hope look like?  I suppose it looks like Hell.