End Bullying

I just read about another heartbreaking tale of teen suicide as a result of bullying. Kenneth Weishuhn, an Iowan teen, took his own life after receiving death threats from classmates who did not like that Kenneth was a homosexual. He was 14. A 14 year old boy receiving death threats from former friends because of his sexuality. This is heartbreaking. I cannot stand it. What the hell is going on in this country? And, in fact, around the world?! The Center for Disease Control estimates that nearly 4,400 teens a year take their own lives, usually as a result of bullying. If that figure is startling, wait for this: for every suicide by a teen, there are 100 other young people that have attempted killing themselves. That’s 440,000 suicide attempts by teenagers across this country every year. Words cannot begin to describe the disgust and utter disappointment I have by the figure.

This is a grotesque pandemic that is sweeping across our society and poisoning the future of this nation. It is literally stripping away the innocence of youth and forcing kids to face issues that no one should ever have to confront. No one should ever have to deal with being made fun of, mocked, ostracized, and humiliated for they way they were born. Our nation has a long standing history of rising up against atrocities in our society. This is barbarity must be ended.

Schools are meant to be hallowed institutions of learning and prosperity. And yet, every year, we hear time and time again of a child… A CHILD… bringing a weapon to his school and carrying out a rampage on his peers. Typically, these acts of violence, while never justifiable, are as a result of bullying and consequently result in many more deaths and injuries than just the bully. Everyday, approximately 160,000 kids stay home from school for fear of being bullied. That’s nearly 4% of the public school students in America daily! Every single day. That’s horrendous. Something needs to be done. We, as a society need to rise up in opposition to bullying in all cases: sexuality, race, ethnicity, background, income, learning ability, etc. Whatever the case may be, bullying needs to be ended. These nefarious deeds need to be recognized for the filthy, vile, despicable acts they are. Every single school in America, public or private, chartered or parochial, should have a Zero Tolerance policy in place for bullying.

We are at a crossroads in this country’s history and in our society. The future of this nation is hanging in the balance. If we allow the youth of this nation to be tormented, literally to death (the broader effects of suicide included), by itself, then what kind of future are we looking ahead to? Statistically, a child that is brutal to animals will go on to become abusive and dangerous as an adult. What about a nation that allows its young people to be plagued by abuse and torment and then kill themselves? Where are we headed? The barbarity of bullying must join with other eyesores on our nation’s past like slavery, racism, and segregation and be placed in the unmarked grave of discarded despicable crimes against civility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fact checkers: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html

Abandoned and Alienated: The GOP is no longer the home of conservatism.

Millions of conservatives across the country have got to be feeling so lost right now. With the clear, conservative candidate to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, bowing out of the race today, we’ve got no one to support that fits well.We’re pretty much being told to bite the bullet by the party’s elite. No one can fault Santorum for putting his daughter’s well-being first, but we can fault the party for making it so difficult for a true conservative that is likable to become a viable candidate for the nomination. Since the beginning of this campaign, we’ve been told Romney’s had it locked up. But, many conservatives cannot come to terms with his conservative credentials or, should I say, lack thereof.

The elite within the party has turned the GOP oligarchical. No longer does the base have a say. No longer do conservatives, who have maintained the party for decades, even matter within the party. We have been overtaken by moderates so fixated on winning in the name of the party that they are willing to veer away from the principles and values that had once made the party great. Conservatism is not failing the Republican party, but rather, we are failing conservatism. Conservatism has been abandoned, thrown out with the bath water.

The Republican mainstream has already begun to call for the party to rally behind Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich has asked Santorum voters to stand with him now, saying he will continue Rick’s fight. But how can we? Romney is just another John McCain of 2008. We’re settling for someone simply because he APPEARS to have the ability to beat Barack Obama. Now, I want to win the White House for the Republican party as much as the next guy. But, not at the expense of my principles. The party is weakened because we allowed the party to stray from our principles. If anything, 2006-2008 should have shown us that. But, we allowed ourselves lose those. And apparently, the party hasn’t learned. Gingrich is a great conservative but his personality is one of the worst! It’s similar to the dryness of Bob Dole in 1996. If Bob Dole could be described as dry and boring, Newt Gingrich can be described as temperamental and a loose cannon. His behavior when he’s lost was highly un-presidential and  just childish. Neither party should settle for that.

I cannot help but feel that, given the current environment within the Republican party, the GOP has become almost hostile to conservatism. Now, I’m not calling for conservatives to abandon ship, but I do feel like we need to send a loud message to the party as a warning that they’re losing us.

Crash Course: Judicial Authority

The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most respected, revered, and trusted entity within the federal government. It is seen as a sanctuary for justice because, for over 200 years, the 112 men and women who have sat on the bench have done so with a sense of duty and dignity that the title commands and that the American people have come to expect. Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Court and all other federal courts have been known to exercise the right and responsibility of judicial review, a process by which a court decides whether a law can withstand constitutional muster. The United States Constitution was set up with a system of checks and balances deliberately designed so that no one branch may overstep its power without the other two being there to knock it back in its place.

Any 8th grader in America with a passing grade in their history class should be able to at least give you that basic understanding of the federal system we have. And yet, President Obama, a former constitutional law professor doesn’t seem to understand that concept. Let’s give the president the benefit of a doubt for a minute, shall we? First let’s take a look at what caused this big hullabaloo.

The key element to the response is at the 2 min 35 sec mark of this video.

It’s now taken the White House nearly 5 days to back track and clarify what the president meant by his statement. While many thought President Obama was implying that the Court had no authority to overturn the healthcare law, however, the White House insists that the president was saying that because the case was about the Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) it would be judicial activism to overturn it. Let’s just accept that theory for a minute. The president is a former Constitutional law professor. He should know that simply isn’t true. First off, the Commerce Clause is a common debate with at least 46 cases regarding the Clause since 1824, some of which did entail the Court overturning Congressional acts and/or regulations under the Clause.

To know the history of this White House and the Supreme Court, though, should cause pause in believing the Administration’s explanation of what the president said. So much ‘confusion’ came out of it that a 3 judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing a case regarding Obamacare (separate from the one argued before SCOTUS last week), in a truly unprecedented move, ordered the Justice Department to prepare a 3-page, single-spaced explanation clarifying whether the White House believes that the judicial branch of the government has the power to overturn laws. While it is important to note that the 3 judges were all Republican appointees, their want for clarification was echoed throughout the legal field as well as the American public. While, the White House called the move a political tactic, it refused to acknowledge the fact that even the president’s own Constitutional law professor said that President Obama was dead wrong, although he did say that he believed Obama didn’t say what he meant to say. But, I find all of the hard to believe. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama publicly scolded the Supreme Court for a ruling regarding campaign finance prompting Justice Alito to physically and verbally respond while Democratic Congressmen, especially Senator Chuck Shumer (NY) applauded behind them. That bold and disrespectful move prompted Justice Alito to refuse attendance at future States of the Union and caused Chief Justice Roberts to consider stopping the Court from going altogether.

This president has no problem bringing his Chicago-style politics to the national forefront in attempts to intimidate other branches into compliance with his wants for the nation. We have seen him force through Congress, by ways of bribes and back alley dealing, massive pieces of legislation that have altered the way government works and deals with the people and corporations. We have seen him attempt to intimidate the Court by verbally chastising them simply because they handed down a ruling that he did not agree with. This current altercation with the Judiciary reminded me, in some ways, of President Andrew Jackson and the Marshall Court’s ruling of the Indian Removal Act when the Court declared it unconstitutional: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Not since then has the Court been so publicly mocked until now. I am anxious to see the Obama Administration’s reaction to the Court’s decision to the Affordable Care Act, which definitely looks like it will  be overturned. If so, I believe that if the Administration publicly denounces the ruling, it will almost be certain political suicide as 1) the law itself is highly unpopular and 2) SCOTUS is still the most trusted of the three branches and the American people listen to the Court’s decisions with the weight they so justly deserve. We shall see how this one plays out. In the meantime though, perhaps President Obama should take a trip back up to Harvard Law for a crash course in Constitutional Law 101 just one more time…

If Irresponsibility Were a Crime: The Trayvon Martin Case

Well, I cannot keep quiet on this issue anymore. The Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, FL has become a national story and is spreading like wildfire through everyday conversations amongst countless Americans.

First off, let’s just call it as it is. This entire story was a debacle from the onset. From the moment the first call to the police was made, disaster was written all over it. What I’m going to attempt to do with this blog is call everyone on their BS and irresponsibility and its role in the case.

But, if for some reason you don’t know what happened (though, I don’t see how you wouldn’t), I will get you up to speed. On the night of February 26, 2012, a call was placed to the non-emergency line of the Sanford Police Department reporting “suspicious behavior” in the neighborhood known as “The Retreat at Twin Lakes” in Sanford. The first call went across the wires at around 7:00. The caller, George Zimmerman, 28, said that he was following a man in a hoodie that he described as “walking around looking about” and also that by his demeanor, the man he was following “look[ed] like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something” according to the 911 recordings. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch leader, as he was the only person in the community to volunteer, and there had been string of burglaries and break ins in the area in the recent past.

The man Zimmerman was following was Trayvon Martin, 17, who was walking from a convenience store back to his father’s fiancée’s house, located in The Retreat at Twin Oaks. Martin was visiting his father after being suspended from his school in Miami Gardens, FL. He was wearing a hoodie at the time of the incident; it must be noted, though, that it was raining on the night of the shooting. Martin noticed that he was being followed while he was on the phone with his girlfriend and confronted his pursuer, Zimmerman, and an altercation ensued. Details as to what exactly happened during the confrontation because it is an ongoing investigation. But, somewhere in the mix of it, Zimmerman opened fire on Martin and killed him. Several 911 calls were made to report the altercation from people in the neighborhood in which you can hear someone yelling for help in the background and then a gunshot. Again, an important fact to keep in mind is that Zimmerman was licensed to carry a firearm and Florida has what is called a “Stand Your Ground” law. Essentially, what that kind of law says is the no person should have any duty to flee an apparent and reasonable belief of immediate threat and may therefore use deadly force to stop any such threat. In other words, if I’m standing 25 feet from a man who’s coming at me with a knife I have every right not to flee but to kill the man instead, while some states say I can only use deadly force if I have no reasonable means of escape.

Upon law enforcements arrival on seen, Zimmerman surrendered himself claiming self-defense and Martin lay dead.  Zimmerman was taken into police custody and released after questioning.

 

I said earlier that this entire situation was a powder keg to begin with. Now, let’s get into why:

 

George Zimmerman: While Zimmerman was the neighborhood’s sole volunteer for neighborhood watch, most organizations like that try to keep involvement to a minimum when it comes to suspicious activity. In other words, its a much more passive program than going out and looking for crime and then following, much less confronting a suspect. It was entirely irresponsible for Zimmerman to pursue Martin at a close distance. Once the police were called, Zimmerman should have heeded the 911 operator’s requests to sit and wait for the police at the mailboxes as Zimmerman had originally agreed to do, according to the recordings. Instead, Zimmerman pursued Martin in his own sense vigilantism. The 911 operator repeatedly asked Zimmerman to stay back and not pursue Martin as he may have been dangerous.  Of course, with no real authority to prohibit such actions, Zimmerman gave pursuit and eventually got into a confrontation with Martin. This was the first spark of the explosive situation and could have been completely avoided had Zimmerman adhered to the operator’s requests to cease pursuit.

Trayvon Martin: Martin, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, was legitimately engaging in his right to peruse a public land wearing a hoodie to stop from getting wet on a rainy night. While walking, he was speaking on a cell phone with his girlfriend and advised her that he was being followed. His girlfriend told him to run. Instead, Martin ignored that advice and confronted Zimmerman asking why he was following him, according to the girlfriend, and the phone went dead after that. She tried to call him back several times without answer.  Again, Martin had every right to be where he was at the time he was there. It was not past any curfew for minors, he knew someone and was staying in the neighborhood. Nothing about what he was doing was illegal. I want to stress that I’m saying that nothing about what he was doing was ILLEGAL. I am not commenting on whether how he appeared was suspicious, that is relative and completely up to an understanding of Zimmerman’s perception at the time. However, where Martin behaved irresponsibly was in confronting Zimmerman. Just as Zimmerman should not have followed Martin because of not knowing whether he was dangerous or not, Martin should not have confronted Zimmerman because there was no way of him knowing whether his pursuer was dangerous. Granted, running would have probably made him appear more suspicious to Zimmerman, but a hastened pace to get home faster would have been the wiser decision.

You will not hear anything from me about the police acting irresponsibly. I believe they did their job and did it well. They detained and questioned Zimmerman. The Sanford Police Department sought an arrest warrant from the state’s attorney’s office which denied it for lack of evidence. I do not feel that the police or even the state attorney’s office acted irresponsibly in the course of the investigation.

The media: The media firestorm that followed the shooting was, in and of itself, highly irresponsible, which is noting new. They milked the story for all of it’s highlights solely for the boost in ratings. Crimes amongst two different “races” especially when one is a minority and one allegedly is not is jackpot gold for the news media. People feed into that and the media knows it. However, its the reporting of the story and the way it was done in this case that makes it that much more reprehensible. First, Zimmerman of white and Peruvian descent and Martin is black. The media initially reported it as a white man shooting a black man, which alone is enough for a headline in most news outlets. But, they furthered it by describing it as a WHITE MAN shooting an unarmed black TEEN. The story, put that way, exploded onto national headlines. They showed pictures of George Zimmerman’s mugshot not related to this case, casting him as a criminal already. And they used an older picture of Trayvon Martin where he is obviously much younger than 17. But, pictures like that make for a better story. The media today are out for blood and they don’t care whose it is they get. Rather than showing honest, up-to-date photos, they use these:

Public officials: When I say “public officials” let me be clear that I am not saying that every public official who has made a comment about this case has done so irresponsibly. I am referring to those that have inflamed the situation with their ridiculous and/or political rhetoric. The Reverend Al Sharpton who has utilized his show, Politics Nation on MSNBC, to highly politicize the case calling it part of some race war that’s ongoing in America. That is grossly irresponsible and even enough so that CNN questioned why NBC would allow Sharpton to continue to use his program in such a way. Even the president of the United States, Barack Obama, has fed into this hysteria by further inflaming the racial tensions when he said that if he had had a son, he would look like Trayvon. That accusation served no purpose but to enrage those already calling for Zimmerman’s head. The New Black Panther Party has even gone so far as to put a bounty on Zimmerman and in a news interview, one Black Panther even said, “if you kill one of ours, we gotta kill one of yours.” That statement verges on terrorist threats.

 

We live in the United States of America, which is every ethnicity and race on the planet rolled up into one nation. We all pledge to one flag, we are all protected under one set of laws. Every single American should know this. If there was wrong doing on Zimmerman’s part then yes, he should be held accountable. If there wasn’t, then this honestly is just a horrible tragedy. But one thing that needs to be done is not being allowed to be done. The special prosecutor investigating all of the events of that night is performing said investigation still at this time. Yet, the media, and much of America has already tried, convicted, and condemned a man who may well be innocent. Now, as I said earlier and have been saying since I have heard about this case, we need to let the police do their job for right now. We are still in a system where a suspect is innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW and not a court of  public opinion. This entire story is filled with irresponsible actions by several parties. If irresponsibility were a crime…

Catch up…

Well, I seem to have fallen behind. A lot of things have happened in the never-ending world of politics. So, let’s do a quick recap shall we?

Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

Victories for Mitt Romney are in orange. (454 Delegates of 1,144 needed) [The map is a bit dated as of 2 hours ago, Romney has just won the Puerto Rican primary with over 50% of the vote and carried all of its 20 Delegates, the delegate count is accurate though.]

Victories for Rick Santorum are in green [MO is striped because they're original primary was a beauty pageant of sorts and no delegates have officially been awarded yet] (173 Delegates of 1,144 needed)

Victories for Newt Gingrich are in purple. (137 Delegates of 1,144 needed)

(Ron Paul has not won any states but has earned 27 Delegates)

Well now that we’re all caught up, let’s get to some predictions for the rest of March.

Tuesday, March 20, Illinois has an opened primary. Polls in the state are showing a deep divide within the party. However, they are showing Mitt Romney with a slight lead over Rick Santorum who has been gaining ground and is nipping very closely at his heals. I don’t see Sanoturm coming out on top on this based on polls; but, I also cannot see Mitt Romney with a sweeping victory as he would a like in a state as big as Illinois. As you may remember if you read some older blogs, one need only look at county by county result maps to see where Romney’s support lies. Cities. Metropolitan areas are Romney’s strongholds. Why? Because that’s where the moderates reside. Rural voters are often times more conservative and Rick is clearly the conservative alternative to Mitt (now, if we can only get that memo to Newt).

County by County Results
Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

Since the 15th, Missouri has been having a convention which will award the state’s official delegates at the end on the 24th. After a clean sweep of every single county in the “beauty pageant” election, Rick Santorum seems to already have the race locked up. With his sweep of Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama and now seemingly Missouri, it is becoming more clear that the race is anything but locked up for Romney who is going to face an uphill battle courting the heartland of America.

Louisiana is voting on the 24th and the Real Clear Politics average has Santorum as 4 points ahead of Romney as of the 10th. With the victory Romney had in Puerto Rico and Santorum’s impending victory in Missouri, it will be interesting to see a more recent poll on the primary. However, I’m not an expert, obviously, but I don’t see the race turning too much unless Romney picks up an insane victory in Illinois.

We shall see. I will definitely be posting on the results and some other stuff in the political realm on Tuesday night or Wednesday. Until then…

-Daniel

Some Thoughts…

Religious War:

So, the fight to maintain religious liberty has united unlikely allies and has now stretched to both Houses of Congress.

The threat of the revocation of religious liberty has brought several large religious institutions and faiths together. As we all know, this was never just about just the Catholic Church. It has been about religious liberty for all faiths, Catholic and Protestant, Jewish and Muslim, monotheistic and polytheistic religions. That is why we are now seeing an amazing uniting of normally opposed faiths. The Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist coalition, among other evangelicals, the Lutheran Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches and Muslims together to call for an exemption in the healthcare mandate. All of these faiths know that if the government crosses this line, then it will be much that easier to do with the next piece of legislation. They know it is entirely unacceptable.

In the Senate, the Distinguished Gentleman from Florida, Marco Rubio, introduced S. 2043, the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act. In the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner, has threatened the president that if he does not reverse his decision and grant an exemption for religious conscientious objectors to his healthcare mandate, then the Congress would do it for him. That would be catastrophic for this president, I believe. What a rebuke it would be if Congress really needed to do this? The Congress telling the president, “you have stepped way over the line.” While it’s exactly the kind of check and balance system our founders created, I would argue that it  would play very unfavorably for Obama in November.

With the economy showing slight signs of life, this debate has all the makings of a social debate as well as a foreign policy debate. Rick Santorum’s strengths lie in both of those areas. He is easily the most socially conservative candidate in the race and has maintained a strong stance against Iran and Islamic extremists for many years prior to the recent troubles we’ve had in the region. He even sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act in 2005, which strongly opposed and condemned the Iranian government’s repressive regime and appropriated money to give to groups in opposition to the government.

If this turns out to be that kind of campaign, Obama has a lot to worry about with Santorum as his competition. His foreign policy has been abysmal, with the exception of ending the war in Iraq. He failed to pressure Egypt to enact true democratic reforms and now that country may retract its treaty with Israel and threaten our strongest ally in the Middle East. He has refused to take strong enough action against Iran until recently which just makes it too little, too late.  Socially, there’s not even a need to comment on the differences there. it would be pointless.

Last night’s elections:

Last night’s elections were a shocker. While Missouri’s primary amounted to ‘beauty contest’ and Minnesota’s primary results may still change their minds according to their very unique way of voting, there is something to be said about the way all three elections went last night. By an overwhelming majority, Missourians, Minnesotans, and Coloradans all voted for a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, who is largely seen as too moderate for the base of the Republican party, myself included. They voted for Rick Santorum in a triple threat Trifecta, thus thrusting him into second place with number of approximate delegates.

There is a great amount of significance to that. Newt Gingrich’s camp will presumably take the stance that he was not on the ballot in the Missouri and thus could not split the conservative vote. To that, my response would be, ‘what about the other two elections? He was on the ballot in those states and still lost.

That says two things:

1. Rick Santorum is again becoming the clear alternative to Mitt Romney for the conservative base.  He was criticized early on in the primary process and in the early debates for mentioning the social issues too much. He was warned by political commentators pretty much across the board that he should have been focusing economic issues. I’ll admit, too, that I was afraid he was spending too much energy touting his socially conservative ideals and seemingly wasting that energy for a base that was focused on something else. All the while, though, he maintained that a good economy is nothing without a good, morally straight nation to run it. He was steadfast in those ideals. And, now, it is paying off. We have seen the economy start to trickle back into life. Unemployment, although hugely inaccurate, appears to be down slightly, consumer confidence and spending is on the rise, and faith in the dollar is gaining very little but much needed ground on an ever weakening Euro. That, plus the current attack on religious liberty by the Obama Administration has energized the base under the social issues banner. No one has been more outspoken and more clear about his opposition to the healthcare mandate and about his faith than Rick Santorum, which is why, I think, Americans are seeing that he is the only candidate that can beat President Obama in November. Newt Gingrich has asked Santorum to step aside so that the base could rally behind him. I think the voters in the Mid-West are sending a clear rebuke to that request and reversing it.

2. Mitt Romney appears to not be able to win the heartland of the country, the strongest Republican strongholds in the nation. Why? It goes back to the reasons that Santorum is the clear choice for the conservative base. The Mid-West’s states’ Republican parties are chock full of Regan-era, compassionate conservative, social issues-focused voters. They do not see Mitt Romney as a viable candidate to accurately reflect and fight hard for their beliefs and values. If you can, find each states primary results’ maps and look at where Romney’s supports lay: near all the big cities and densely populated areas. That’s why he’s done so well in Florida and came in second in South Carolina. But, when you get to the heart of America, away from the big cities and to the heartland, that’s where you’ll find those true base conservatives and they’ve picked Rick.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the heartland’s primaries and caucuses end up and now that the base has been energized, where the conservative vote falls. I am extremely excited for the upcoming votes and especially Super Tuesday early next month!

Super Tuesday states are shown in red below.

Here’s the results by state now. Orange denotes a state Romney carried, green is Santorum, and purple goes to Gingrich.

And, the battle continues…

I am in complete and utter amazement at the audacity of the Obama Administration. With the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, thousands of priests, hundreds of thousands of Catholics, and millions of people from other faiths already feeling attacked and betrayed by our government, this White House still had the gall to silence Catholic military chaplains from reading a letter written by the Archbishop of the Military.

As if it wasn’t bad enough that the the Chief of Chaplains in the Army had already tried to cut out a sentence from the letter, upon the urging of someone higher up, to the best of my knowledge and from what I’ve read that person is not clearly known yet, the letter was prevented from being read at all. The sentence is:

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

The excuse that was given was that it would encourage “civil disobedience” within the ranks of the military. That, to me, is utterly preposterous! The US Armed Forces just got done winding down a war that was hugely unpopular even within the military. Here’s my line of thinking… if the men and women of the military can maintain composure and professionalism  and follow orders even when they may not agree with the war but do so simply because they know it is their duty, what makes this government think they are going to rise up in outspoken protest against this in any way that would break the  civil law or the Armed Services Code of Conduct?

It was a terrible excuse to censor dissenters. It was a violation of not only religious liberty, but also of freedom of speech. Those chaplains have a duty to both their nation and their Church. They were forced into silent compliance for an overreaching government that was abridging the freedom of religion and in blatant violation of the US Constitution.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. The White House is now telling the church house what it can and cannot preach to its congregants. That is not freedom, that is socialism. That is totalitarianism. That is dictatorial. This must stop. This government must see that it cannot attempt to influence any church that is simply complying with its doctrine. We are on the cusp of full on war against religion and about one step away from the point of no return.

As a Catholic, I must strongly praise my Church, which has maintained these views for hundreds of years, for being forthright in its noncompliance with this law. I am proud that our bishops are standing up against an overreaching, unconstitutional, tyrannical executive that seems to think it is above the laws of this nation. I am an American and damn proud of it. But, I am also a Catholic. When it becomes a matter of moral and religious principle, I will stand by my Church until death.

I strongly encourage anyone of any faith reading this blog to write their congressman and senators. Tell them to support religious freedom and oppose any action by ANY branch of government that attempts to abridge our God-given rights to religious freedom. This is a call to arms. Let your pen and/or your computer be your weapon. Tell this government, a government that at one time knew its bounds, knew that the Constitution was in place to protect the people from an overstepping government, knew that oppression, suppression, censorship,  and compulsion were all contributing factors of tyranny, tell this government to stay in Washington and out of the church house.

 

 

 

 

 

Respond to the government’s attacks below:

Click Here to email your Federal elected officials.

If you’d rather not use a message prepared by an organization, click here.

 

The War on Religion

Let us take a brief look at one of the Founders of this nation and his beliefs regarding the right to religious liberty.

Thomas Jefferson: This man argued for the implementation of the Bible and daily prayers in the Washington, DC public school system. When discussing Jefferson and religious liberty, the most common reference is the “Wall of Separation” doctrine, which many attribute to him for this:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

But take a look at this statement again. Now, take a look at the phrasing of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[...]“

Yes, it is directly from the Constitution that he derived that statement. But, look at his wording in the beginning. He is saying that man and man’s religions need to be protected from the government and thus the ‘Wall of Separation.’ He was saying that government should not and cannot  break into the realm of religion and dictate to that faith and its followers what they can and cannot believe. He was not implying it was both ways; remember he lobbied the school system to include the Bible and daily prayers.

For as long as this nation has been conceived in liberty: from 1776 to the present, America and her government have always respected the freedom of conscience along with the freedom of religion. And yet, the Obama Administration has declared war on religious institutions across the country. His healthcare initiative, the Affordable Care Act, has adversely affected the right of religious liberty. It mandates that all employers provide insurance that covers prescriptions like contraceptives, birth control, and even, in some cases, the “morning after” pill. It offers no exemption to religious institutions that feel that those things are morally reprehensible and sinful.

Still, the Obama Administration has done nothing to help alleviate this growing tide against its questionable healthcare mandate. It gave what it called 2 “olive branches” to religious institutions.

One of those olive branches is to postpone the enforcement of the requirement for one year. That is to say that, since Obama-care goes into effect in 2014, the religious institutions of America have until 2015 to fall in line with the government mandate.

However, the only way that the more than 600 Catholic healthcare institutions in this country can be exempt from the mandate, is to serve and employ ONLY Catholics in those institutions. This flies directly in the face of one of the precepts the Catholic faith: to be one’s brother’s keeper. The Church cannot and will not stand at the doors of an emergency room and stop a gunshot victim at the door to ask for his baptismal certificate. It is anti-Catholic and anti-American to expect the Church to do so.

Essentially, the government is telling religious organizations, especially Catholic ones, fall in line with the government requirements whether it impedes on your morals or not, or you may only aid those of your faith denomination. In layman’s terms, as His Grace, Bishop David Zubik of the Pittsburgh Catholic diocese said this weekend: “to hell with you.”

The Obama Administration seems oblivious to this growing disgust for its policies and their infringement on the rights of the people. “I don’t believe there are any Constitutional issues here,” said White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, at the Jan. 31, 2012  daily press briefing. That statement totally confounds me! How can he say something so blatantly stupid? This is not a political issue anymore, as conservative AND liberals are decrying this as an affront to religious liberty in the United States of America; a nation in which the right of religious freedom exists FIRST in the Bill of Rights.

This is dangerous territory for any president to be in, especially a weakened president like Barack Obama. While he enjoyed a comfortable victory among Catholics in the 2008 election against John McCain (54%-45%, respectively), he is slipping in that support. His approval rating among weekly church goers, this includes people from all faiths, stands at 39%. That’s down 11% from last year (source: Fox News’ Fox Facts). While one may suggest that most Catholics do not attend weekly Mass, which is true, it is important to note that in the Church’s survey of American Catholics conducted in the middle of 2011, 67% of American Catholics believe that it is a moral imperative to help the sick and poor (National Catholic Reporter). Also, Catholics made up about 27% of the electorate in 2008. This is not something that should be gambled by a president who is growing increasingly unpopular as more and more of his base supporters in 2008 are being thrown under the bus to push his liberal, socialist agenda ahead and down the throats of freedom-loving Americans.

The President Delivers the State of the Union

Tonight, January, 24, President Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address to a Joint Session of Congress. For those of you who want a quick summary, I am here. For those who want a more detailed summary, I am also here. Here’s the short and sweet summary.

“The military’s great. I ended the war and killed bin Laden. Congress needs to act. I have a plan. Business is bad, Wall Street is bad, banks are bad and government’s good. Congress needs to do what I want it to. Government’s still very good. I’ve done some stuff… better than George W. Bush. That’s why I am running again. Congress still needs to act. Oh! And, I’ve got another vague plan. But still, Congress needs to act. And, act some more. Military’s great and we need to be more like them…. Congress has broken Washington and burned the bridge to the rest of America. Congress needs to act. God bless America.”

Ok, now for the actual summary.

Fortunately, this State of the Union was not as politically charged as last year’s State of the Union with the Supreme Court verbally assaulted by the president. But, because of last year’s spectacle, Justice Alito did not attend.  If you remember, Alito, appointed to the Court by Pres. Bush, verbally responded to accusations by President Obama in last year’s State of the Union while Democratic members surrounding the Justices, specifically Sen. Chuck Schumer, hooted and hollered as if it were a high school pep rally and not a formal address to the United States Congress and the American people. However, one could plainly hear that it sounded more like a campaign speech than the State of the Union Address.

The president began his annual address touting his accomplishments of his campaign promises; ie. total withdrawal of American fighting forces in the Iraq War, passing health care “reform,”  and the killing of Osama bin Laden (although I find it rather inappropriate to use this triumph for the nation as a way to garner political victory).

Following those achievements, President Obama wasted little time getting to the core of America’s main focus today: the economy. He said, in reference to the remarkable job of the US military men and women, “imagine what we could accomplish if we worked together” and have each others backs for the betterment of America. He called keeping the promise of America alive the defining issue of our time.

President Obama said that the US must restore the economy to a time when all have an opportunity to succeed and all is fair for everyone. He declared American values are at stake. (I could not help but laugh at the thought of this president saying that. Even John Boehner half rolled his eyes at the suggestion How could a man who has sought to broaden the federal government to a size previously unimaginable, suggest that the values of America are under attack?)  He said we must return to a time when everyone has a fair shot and does their fair share and pays their fair amount of taxes.

He went on to give a brief description of the economic collapse and barely 5 minutes into his State of the Union, President Obama, while subtly, did what he has done throughout the length of his presidency: blame Bush. He attacked the “previous administration,” by my count, 4 times in his hour and a half long speech.  And said that he would oppose any effort to back to the economy that caused the crisis, calling it irresponsible and possibly criminal (I’ll explain that part a bit later).

He attacked businesses that send jobs overseas and suggested that those who do so should be required to pay more taxes to cover tax breaks that we should give to companies that choose to stay and create jobs here. He attempted to have a JFK moment and told businesses, “ask what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will help you in anyway it could.” Oddly, he attacked the bailouts of 2009. I’m not sure if he remembers that he was the president then. But, he said that we would never again bailout any company or bank and that the era of “too big to fail” has ended. He declared that now banks must have a ‘living will’ in which there is a plan for collapse of how to pay their existing bills and then die off. He also said that there should be a fee on the major banking institutions that received government bailouts to help repair the housing market and to pay a debt of public trust to the American people. I am curious to see if he is prepared to forbid those institutions from passing that cost onto the American people should the fee be enacted.

President Obama said that there is more tuition debt than credit card debt amongst Americans. I must admit though, he did make one good suggestion among his few offered last night.  He spoke about education and the need for more Americans being eligible and able to receive a higher education. He proposed lengthening and increasing tax credits for American students and families who are paying for a greater education. He said “higher education cannot be a luxury. [Rather], it is an economic imperative.” He issued a challenge to the states to require all students to remain in high school until graduation or until the age of 18  (I must admit that I’m glad he didn’t order the Dep. of Education to require this and left it to the states, although I would support this measure if the states decided to enforce it). He wants to He called on the states to make higher education a greater priority when they were making their budgets. And he said that states must work to keep costs down. However, while the ideas he presented were good he did his normal pandering to the teachers unions. But, under this presidency and in an election year, one would expect, right?

The president then went on and reiterated his complete lack of respect for the southern states and their strife in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. He admitted that comprehensive immigration reform is necessary and necessary now. But, then he said that since Congress wouldn’t be able to complete it this year because of the election season (yeah, that’s what we pay our elected officials for… running for re-election), he suggested that Congress send him a bill that made it possible for those who have lived here for some time and those who were brought here  illegally, by their parents as children to have a fast track to citizenship or legal status. Is it not enough, Mr. President, that every time the DREAM Act, which is exactly what he described, has failed every single time it has gone up in the House under both Democrat and Republican leadership? Clearly, the American people have spoken!

So, he nailed down some key demographics necessary for his re-election campaign: women, independents, and Latinos. What’s that? Nope! He didn’t forget about the environmentalists. The president urged Congress to pass clean energy tax credits. He not so subtly defended his administration’s support of the Solyndra Corporation, the failed solar energy company that filed for bankruptcy almost immediately after receiving millions of American taxpayer dollars.  He said he wanted more exploration of America’s oil forces, which was a plus, but then said that we need to remove tax loopholes for big oil corporations. He said that we need to invest more in the harnessing of natural gas, but then demanded that with that must come more regulation about what the companies use to get the natural gas. He said he wanted more investment into all parts of the clean energy sector. The question that I would like to know is, ‘what about nuclear??’ Will he support more nuclear power plants in the United States?

The Commander-in-Chief also announced last night that the Department of Defense was going to be the largest sector of the federal government that will now focus on utilizing clean energy. But, as he did with most of his proposals, he just threw it out there and offered no specifics. Because when it comes to the DoD, that’s exactly what the American people want: ambiguity. Again, he demanded Congress send him a bill that creates new clean energy jobs and declared that he would sign it the next day.

He announced the creation of a new task force that was to be taken up under the recess-appointed Consumer Watchdog, Richard Cordray: The Financial Crimes Unit. He urged Congress to pass legislation that contains fraud control and offered greater punishments for repeat offenders. Moving from fraud he announced that he directed Attorney General, Eric Holder, and his Justice Department to investigate certain aspects of the financial and housing crises for any possible criminal activities taken by the banks and home lenders in defrauding the American people who bought homes and took out credit that clearly they could not afford. He alluded to blaming President Bush, or excuse me, the previous administration for allowing the banks and home lenders to do this. That, however, only partially true. The laws that created the current housing mess were created at the urging of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, by the House Republicans on the mid-90s under their Contract With America. President Clinton urged the Congress in 1996 to create new laws to allow more Americans to buy and own their own homes. The President and the Congressional leadership from BOTH parties worked with mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make it easier to buy homes. Economists warned of the potential crisis that law may create but were unheard. When President Bush took office in 2001, he made education the priority. Then 9 months after taking office the unthinkable happened and Bush became a wartime president. So, his economic team, that was eager to remove the potential crisis was pushed to back burner until it was too late. So, President Obama needs only to look to the husband of his Secretary of State to find the main man responsible for this mess, as far as the Executive branch is concerned.

Maintaining his socialist views, President Obama then went on to talk about his redistribution of wealth politics. According to the president, millionaires making more than $1 million a year should be taxed NO LESS than 30% for their income. And, families making less than $250 thousand a year should see no tax increases. Where, Mr. President is the incentive to then become investors in the market? That’s why investors, many of whom make their living from investing millions in the stock market thereby keeping our economy alive, have a lower tax bracket. It’s called incentive. Thomas Jefferson warned that “this democracy will cease to exist when the government takes from those who work and give to those who will not.” Obama’s redistribution of wealth tax plan is exactly that. It’s not about the middle class, its about spreading the wealth of others, who have worked hard for it, around to the rest of the population. And, this is coming from someone who is deep in education, credit card, and health debt.

President Obama then went on to seemingly, at least it seemed like to me, to claim some credit for the Arab Spring. I’m sorry, sir, but the ‘previous administration’ is the one that brought democratic reforms to the Middle East. He said that Syria’s Assad will learn that the cry for human dignity and human rights cannot be denied. He did make mention of Iran, as well, thankfully, and said that absolutely no options are off the table, but peace was preferred, to make sure that Iran is unable to get a nuclear weapon. He claimed that because of his diplomacy rather than unilateral action, the global community stands more united against Iran and that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated from the global community, putting more and more pressure on already weakened regime.

He concluded the address by asking Congress to send him a bill that creates a Veteran’s Job Corps that encourages companies and localities to hire veterans more easily and offer tax credits for doing so. He declared that the State of the Union is strong and cited that we are still the only nation that is indispensable on the global stage. He declared that anyone that says otherwise is lying.

Overall, like I said earlier, it sounded more like a campaign speech than an address to the national legislature. But, it is not new from this president. He has repeatedly used important speeches and events to further his own political campaign. He’s a better campaigner than leader.

Throughout this address, President Obama attacked Congress several times saying ‘you must act’ or ‘send me a bill’ at least 8 times under my count. Yet, he offered only 3 proposals and announced 2 executive orders but they contained absolutely no detail for the American people to decipher an opinion. Why? Because, if he can say the parts that sound good like, ‘everyone will have healthcare’ but leave out the part that says ‘taxes will increase on employers thereby weakening the job growth and fracturing the market among other issues,’ then he can get ignorant support of his ambitions. Clearly, he did not learn from the 2010 rise of the Tea Party that the American people are not as dumb and ignorant as he thinks anymore. He’s the Campaigner-in-Chief rather than the Commander-in-Chief- choosing to politicize the death of Osama bin Laden and the Arab Spring (which he had NO hand in).

I look forward to next year when we say goodbye to this Joke of the Union and welcome a conservative to repeal the atrocities that have been passed and signed in the past 3 years.

Thank God!

I had a conversation with one of my friends a while ago while I was still in California about the Gay Community and their politics: in the bag for the Democratic Party and liberal organizations. I have never really been able to say,  “yes, I am a supporter of these organizations” because they’ve never been welcoming of my ideals. I am a member of the community they claim to protect and yet I am not acceptable because of the social and political view I hold.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that I am don’t make any sense. I had a pretty good debate with my friend, Matt, back in April about it. He asked how I could be against gay marriage and want to deny myself the “right” to be with whoever I love. The argument that I  CAN be with the person I want to be with, I just don’t need a paper telling me how much my love means. The gay community feels like it’s a right and cannot be infringed upon by anyone. Marriage, up until the last two centuries has always been a thing left to the church. Because the state, as it is prone to do, stuck its nose where it never should have, we have the problems we have today. Now, we’ve got a major Constitutional conundrum that is pitting the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution against each other. An issue now that only the US Supreme Court can decide.

I have heard some pretty strange questions about my supporting for the former Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. “You do know his beliefs about the gay rights issue, right?” I’ve been asked by some how I could support him when he doesn’t believe in gay rights. The answer is simple: I don’t either. At least not to the extent the liberal gay left does. I am a proud supporter of Rick Santorum since 2006. I have researched his views on every single major issue I could think of and cannot find a single issue on which I disagree with him. Yet, he is so often called a bigot, hate-monger, and a homophobe. The gay community has even gone so far as to have come up with a rather disgusting and vile meaning for his last name. I cannot understand how a community that years so much for respect and acceptance can throw out such hateful and deplorable rhetoric so freely and so often. Yet, conservatives and Republicans and called the vitriolic and non-inclusive people. Ha! Funny how that works.

I say all of this because I found a very interesting blog on here for conservative members of the gay community. They, like what I’m sure are many other gay conservatives are tired of being criticized for her conservative views. Now, I must admit that I have not read enough of these blogs yet to see if the authors agree with me on the marriage issue but there a lot more issues that makes one conservative than marriage. Here’s a vlog she created on YouTube and in it she refers to another similar video which I will also put below.

 

 

Their WordPress blog site is :  The Gay Conservative.

This is the other video she makes reference to:

 

The video creator has disabled embedding, but click here for the link to the video.

 

I have to give praise to these two individuals for putting their beliefs out there like that. The conservative gay community definitely needs a lot more like them. Thank God for them.

 

 

 

PS. I have a found an organization that, for me at least, adequately represents good conservative views for the LGBT Community: GOProud. I say this for the political aspect because I feel that the “Log Cabin Republicans” have strayed much too far off the path to call themselves true Republicans let alone conservatives.

 

 

-Danny