Tomorrow - Make Sure You Vote

Tomorrow we vote in the "off-year" elections.  Every seat in the House of Representatives and approximately 33 seats in the Senate are up for grabs.  Additionally, there are many local elections occurring as well.  The stakes are high in this particular election, as many progressives are seeking to derail the improvements that President Trump has made so far.

We had quite a problem with some folks who adopted the hashtag #nevertrump two years ago.  I would have thought that the improvements wrought by Trump these past two years might have encouraged them to see the imprudence of their stances.  Unbelievably so, many still dig their heels in, declaring with some stinking pride that they will simply not vote at all.  I dealt with this two years ago and will not rehash my rebuttals of that foolishness; see here for an anthology of those posts.

Now let's look at some Maryland races (since I'm in Maryland).  It goes without saying that I intend to "vote red", that is, vote for the GOP candidate.  While I'm not completely enamored with some of them, I know the Democrats in Maryland embrace anti-God and progressive platforms.  As far as possible, they need to be kept at bay.

We also have elections for the board of education.  So for whom do we vote in these races?  Well, the Maryland Education Association puts out their "apple ballot" of endorsements.  Here it is.  I simply study their list, and then vote for the "apple candidates'" opponents.  We know that the National Education Association is dedicated to turning public schools into progressive indoctrination camps; the MDEA is simply their local chapter.

Ora et labora.  Pray your rosaries and vote.

MCC Congress Candidate Survey For Maryland

The survey results that you see to the right were included in today's parish bulletin.  The Maryland Catholic Conference continues its abominable habit of combining issues of widely varying moral weight into one ambiguous list - ambiguous because it makes the issues appear to have equal moral weight.  They don't.  Moreover, notice that there is no mention whatsoever about abortion, even though Maryland harbors a late-term baby-killer: Leroy Carhart.

However, the first issue regards an assisted suicide ban.  That of course does deal with a non-negotiable issue for one can never be involved in the deliberate taking of innocent human life.  That constitutes murder.  The second issue is also of immense concern, for that involves our right to practice our Holy Faith.  Such practice entails speaking out on moral issues of the day.  Those first two columns are key to understanding which candidates would be acceptable.  Indeed, between the contenders for each race, the choice is literally between night and daylight.

We see, for instance, that Kathy Szeliga would deserve the votes of faithful Catholics for US Senate whereas Chris Van Hollen would be completely unacceptable.  Please don't be fooled by that fourth column, for the MCC, like its national USCCB counterpart, has bought into the progressive lie that open borders is somehow Catholic teaching.  It is not.  In fact, CatholicVote has a handy list of what does not constitute binding teaching, progressive deceptions notwithstanding.

Note that five of them did not submit a response to the MCC survey.  All of these are Democrats - surprise!  They are all flaming pro-aborts and one of them, Steny Hoyer, is the current Minority Whip in the House.  Please cast your votes for their GOP opponents.  Elijah Cummings is another odious incumbent, implicated in several scandals (see here and here).

The list looks rather clear - the GOP candidates by and large are the ones whose positions align with Church teaching regarding the non-negotiable issues.  The only race that appears to have candidates of similar viewpoints is that of the First Congressional District (eastern shore).  I would have to recommend Andy Harris; he has proven himself as pro-life in the House and we do not want leadership in the House to fall to Democrat hands; we've had enough of Nancy "pope" Pelosi.

November 8 is Election Day.  Get out and vote.  Past readers understand why I urge a vote for Trump/Pence.  These local races are also crucial.  Trump can nominate Supreme Court justices but we need a decent Senate to confirm them.

Yes, Voting In This Election Is Necessary

It is not often when I disagree with His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi.  However, in light of this post of his, I must.  I see two flaws in this post.

First, there is this notion that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are equally evil.  I think that has been amply demonstrated by enough people that simply isn't the reality of the situation.  Hillary has already proven her depravity during her public career - and her record includes a trail of dead bodies.  A commenter on the bishop's post asked for a list of Trump's evils, mentioning that no list was necessary for Hillary.  When such a list can be produced (I mean actual evil committed, not just verbalized) that is comparable to Hillary's, then I'll concede that the bishop has a point.

Second, the bishop seems to think that in the matter of this election, that our action of voting isn't necessary.  I hold that it is very necessary, for one simple reason.  Of the two unequally evil outcomes, one will inevitably occur.  If the bishop is implying that we don't have a positive moral duty to at least mitigate the harm done, then he may inadvertently be justifying and even advocating a sin of omission on the part of Catholic voters.  The act of voting is, in and of itself, a moral good.  Its morality can be impacted by the intended aim of the voter.  We also know that in the poll, we can vote so as to oppose a candidate as much as to support one; the bishop himself acknowledges that fact as he suggests a "write-in" for Cruz.

When we deliberate any action, we must consider any foreseeable consequences of the action.  We cannot act in reckless disregard for these consequences, even if we don't deliberately intend them.  To do so would be a sin against prudence.  Too many of the #nevertrump crowd are engaging in such sin - and they seem to be quite proud of it!  Go figure!  They refuse to learn from history!  Look at what happened when they refused to vote for McCain eight years ago and Romney four years ago!  What kind of "principles" allow these folks to disregard such foreseeable disasters as they deliberate how to cast their votes?  Must we have a repeat of these last eight years?  Must we allow Hillary entrance into the White House where she (and her husband) can complete the work of dismantling the United States (and probably adding to their body count)?

My dear fellow Christians!  Wake up!  Please regain a sense of perspective about our current situation and vote for the GOP candidate!  That is the only effective way to stop Hillary (or Bernie).

Some Of What's At Stake On November 6

Click here if you can't see embedded video.

A Belch At The "Catholic Vote" Blog

That's the only thing I can call Mark Stricherz's post on the Catholic Vote (formerly American Papist) blog entitled "Pro-Life Activists and the Politics of Resentment".  He refers to the demonstrations staged against Todd Stave, one of the two owners (the the other being his sister) of the Germantown Reproductive Health Services baby-killing gulag in Germantown Maryland.  From the text of this post, I take it that his sole source of information is the Washington Post.  No one in their right minds holds that to be anything other than left-wing biased.  I'd go so far as to say that the Post, more and more, is dropping all pretenses of impartiality.

I submitted a comment to that post yesterday afternoon.  It doesn't appear.  Funny - no comment of mine on that blog has been published.  It's their blog so they can do whatever they wish but such suppression of my comment that does comply with their stated rules diminishes the respect that I might otherwise have for them.  However, this is why this blog exists - so that the  petulance of the Catholic Vote, Catholic Standard and others will not stifle voices of faithful Catholics who don't tow their lines.  Below (in italics) is the comment that I submitted.

Need I remind you that the Post can hardly be called "reliable" and certainly should not be one's sole source of information?  I must also take exception with your usage of the pejorative phrase "politics of resentment" when describing the pro-lifers.

If you think they “resent” something, just what do you think that is?  It's not the landlord per se that they "resent" (your term, not mine).  They are correctly upset that close to 1000 babies (to date, and counting) have been slaughtered at the Stave's place in Germantown.  They might also be a tad miffed that while they are taking a stand (with incumbent risks) and showing the truth of Stave's activities (and Stave's assault of one of them was picked up on camcorder), "armchair-generals" wag their ever-so-superior fingers at them from the comfort and safety of their computer stands.

When I wrote that, I forgot to take Stricherz to task for describing what pro-lifers did as "threats".  If his sole basis for that term is the Washington Post, I submit that he engaged in slander.  Moreover, Stave's site, Voice For Choice, links to an interview he did with Rachel Maddow.  I suggest that you watch it.  Notice at the 1:55 mark that Stave had acknowledged that the calls received were "not threatening".  That begs the question even more - where does Stricherz get the bright idea that the pro-life folks were "threatening" anybody?  I never thought I'd see the day when I'd have to give Rachel Maddow kudos instead of a Catholic blogger.  Yes, yes, I know her pro-baby-killing rants are an insult to the intelligence of the normal human being, but I do give the poor deluded dear credit where it's due.

Ostensibly Voice for Choice was started as a result of a demonstration during a parents' event at a school attended by Stave's daughter.  I wrote about that before here.  In that post I mentioned the assault on the pro-lifer allegedly committed by Stave himself.  How peculiar that Stricherz doesn't see fit to mention it - but of course he wouldn't if he relied solely on the Washington Post.  So much for "due diligence" research!

By the way - Defend Life's latest newsletter features an article about the pro-life efforts at the Germantown abortuary on pages 17-18.  On page 18 you'll see a photo of some "Voice for Choice" groupies holding a picture of Jack Ames - with Ames himself having a chuckle over it!

It's The Morality, Stupid!

Remember the slogan from the 1992 Clinton campaign, "It's the economy, stupid"?  People swallowed that hook, line and sinker.  They voted their wallets over their consciences - and both were royally insulted.  We need to vote as God would have us vote, and to do so keeping in mind the non-negotiable moral matters. Abortion, euthanasia, abuse of embryos, contraception, and the gay lifestyle must be opposed at the polls, regardless of other issues.  Here Michael Voris declare unambiguously, "if a Catholic votes to put an anti-life, anti-marriage candidate in office, he might as well just pay for abortion for someone, because he has been part of the political machinery that has caused these intrinsic evils to come to reality."

Click here if you can't see embedded video.