Cardinal Burke Weighs In On Responsible Catholic Voting

Yesterday LifeSiteNews relayed the proceeds of a teleconference with Cardinal Burke, in which they participated.  His Eminence gave some very cogent suggestion to Catholics and people of good will regarding the upcoming presidential elections.  I'll highlight and elaborate on a few salient points from the LSN article.

• "The faithful must vote for the candidate who will do the most to advance the protection of human life, defense of the family, respect for freedom, and care for the poor."  Note the imperative "must".  Now cannot that be said for some third-party candidate?  No - simply because he/she will not get elected.  There are only two viable candidates: Clinton and Trump.  Whether or not we like that situation is irrelevant.  It is what it is.  We need to deal with reality as it presents itself, not as we might wish it to be.
• "Burke warned Catholics against not voting at all and against the practice of writing in the name of a preferred candidate on the ballot, saying it could inadvertently cause the election of a candidate who does not respect life, family, and freedom."
• "Those are difficult considerations, and I don’t say any of this in a kind of easy way. But I do think that Catholics especially need to be very cautious and not simply opting out, or good pro-life people and good pro-family people, simply just throwing up their hands."

In that last point, His Eminence addresses the spiritual and intellectual malaise that has deluded many, if not most, of the #nevertrump crowd.  It is that malaise that seems to have caused Alan Keyes to blather on like Cokie Roberts - and he's only one of several.

Regular readers of this blog will recall that I've put forth the case that not only is it moral to vote for Trump during this election, but not to do so would be immoral.  It seems that Cardinal Burke's words corroborate my understanding of the moral theology as it pertains to this particular presidential race.

Today's Political Developments Demand Rational Response, Not Knee-Jerk Rancor (UPDATED)

First, a little legal-talk to stave off the salivating lawyers..  Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc is not - repeat, NOT - a "c3" corporation,  In fact, we're not a "501c" anything!  That means we can make all the political statements we want!  Now that this is out of the way, let's continue.

As most of you know, I was hoping that Ted Cruz would be the GOP nominee for US President.  I voted for him in the MD primary.  However, I just got the news that after the Indiana primary, Cruz has decided to drop out of the race.  That means that Donald Trump is the nominee, assuming that all RINO attempts to submarine his campaign come to naught.  On the Democrat side, we see that Hillary is beating Bernie quite handily.  So barring very unusual occurrences, we'll be seeing a Trump vs Clinton race this coming November.

Quite honestly, I find Trump to be an enigma.  Some of his policy statements have been rather contradictory.  Some of his conduct has, in my opinion, not been worthy of one aspiring to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not been enigmatic in the least.  Her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stances are out there for everyone to see.  We know for a fact what kind of Supreme Court justices she'll nominate if she wins the White House.  We know what kind of mess her foreign policy will be, just by the debacle that was her performance as Secretary of State.  Need I remind one and all of the four Americans that she knowingly let die in Benghazi on her watch?  Need we reminders of the security breaches posed by her reckless handing of servers and emails?

I recite all this because I'm seeing signs of irrational rage and anger against Trump's nomination from good Christians and pro-life activists.  Their common mantra seems to be "anyone but Trump", as they threaten to stay home on election day or to write in some other person on their presidential ballot.  That is the kind of thinking and acting that garnered for this country eight years of the worst presidency to date; disdaining both McCain and Romney, good Christians (acting on emotion versus reason) simply abdicated their civic duties and let Obama waltz into the White House.

One meme captured the lack of logic perfectly.  I wished I saved it; if I see it again, I'll post it. (UPDATE - See below!)  Anyway, it said (paraphrased), "if Trump wins the nomination, Hillary wins the White House so I won't vote in November".  This statement is an example of a logical fallacy known as a self-fulfilling prophesy, for if good people do indeed not effectively vote against Hillary, she will indeed win the White House.  Note carefully.  In that case, she'd win not because Trump was the nominee but because otherwise-rational people used that as an excuse not to vote for the one candidate who could deny her the White House.

If we're serious about at least slowing down the oncoming train wreck of our cultural degradation, we will have to vote for Trump, for that is the only effective way to vote against Hillary.  And please - none of this write-in crap.  You might feel better while you're doing it, but elections are not about how we feel.  We need to turn our emotions off and force our intellect and reason to have dominance over our feelings and "gut reactions".

I've written before quite extensively on voting and the Catholic Principle of Double Effect; I need not rehash it here, but instead link to the anthology of posts.  Yes, the act of voting for Trump needs to be subject to this scrutiny, but so do the acts of: not voting at all, or, the act of voting "third-party" or "write-in" must be subject to the same scrutiny.

Let us ask Our Lord's blessing and direction for us.

UPDATE - I knew it would crop up like kudzu!

I'm sure the creator of that can't - or won't - see their own logical fallacy!  LOL, they can't even figure out the proper spelling for "principles"!

Hillary's Email Scandals May Hit Close To Home

As Hillary Clinton's email woes were unfolding all over the internet, I had my suspicions as to the origins of this news.  Mind you, I do suspect that indeed she bungled her responsibilities there but the timing of the news break - and Obama's seeming nonchalance - was rather telling.  Coupled with the common knowledge that there's not much love lost between the Obamas and Clintons, I had reason to suspect that this news broke with the assistance of the Messiah Most Miserable.

Now it turns out that my suspicions have substance!  The New York Post has details, alleging resentment at the snubbing that Obama got from Democratic candidates during the 2014 elections.  Valerie Jarrett appears to be more of the mastermind than Obama himself, but there seems to be an attempt to sabotage Hillary's run for the White House in 2016.

Now here's the "close to home" part.  Jarrett has been allegedly courting two other Democrats to run against Hillary.  One of them is Elizabeth Warren; I suspected she was a favorite.  But the other took me a bit by surprise - former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley!  We know what a bang-up job he did in Maryland, don't we?  Rain tax, illegal immigrants everywhere, jobs not everywhere, gay "marriage" and of course, a corrupt legal environment assuring Leroy Carhart unfettered baby-killing opportunities.  Frankly I don't know why they'd consider O'Malley, since his less-than-stellar time in the State House led to the election of a Republican governor (otherwise almost impossible in Maryland).

If O'Malley runs, it will be most telling to watch the reactions of local Catholic prelates.  Here's hoping they don't gush over "the opportunity for another Catholic in the White House" for that CINO would only trash the One True Church and her Faith and Morals.

Let us pray.

Michele Bachmann For President??

She is reportedly going to form a presidential exploratory committee in the summer.  So far she's the most appealing of those Republicans who have made presidential noises.  The thought of Trump, Gingrich, Romney and some others frankly turns my stomach, as all have displayed troublesome RINO characteristics and have given me reason to believe that they will not put the babies at the top of their priority lists.

Michele Bachmann has shown principle.  I don't have time to go into a litany right now, but bear in mind that when the first "continuing resolution" GOP betrayal went down, she was one of a handful of Republicans that opposed the betrayal of babies to Planned Parenthood courtesy of our tax dollars. 

I encourage her to continue. 

Why Ron Paul Is NOT An Acceptable Presidential Candidate

I thank Mr. Paul for his candor about the role that he feels the Federal government should assume in protecting unborn children.  Actually, it would be more accurate to say "should NOT assume".  In a nutshell, he believes that abortion is murder, but he also believes that the Federal government has no role in making any decisions regarding the same.  It "should be left to the individual states".

He's a big advocate for states' rights over federal obtrusiveness.  Generally, I'd agree with him, but not here.  There are matters that trump even states' rights - such matters are the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and IN THAT ORDER!  One of the prime functions of government is to protect its citizens from unjust aggression - all of its citizens.  If abortion is outlawed in one state, but embraced in next state, that means some citizens are imperiled while others are protected.  That's not morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination - and perhaps a violation of the 14th Amendment to boot.

Some might say, "hey, if you don't like a state's law, you can move to another", with regard to abortion.  Oh really?  Let's try a little common sense here.  The person who has the most at stake in this question, the unborn child obviously lacks the ability to "just pick up and move".   He or she deserves no less protection than does anyone else.

This is one primary reason why I believe this "libertarian" position is immoral and is not compatible with true conservatism nor Christianity.