Why you might not want to vote, but should

So, for various reasons, you may have decided who you're going to vote for this upcoming presidential election. If you're at all like me, you're sick of the political hype spewing from the talking heads of the media. If you're at all a responsible Catholic, I think it's obvious that Barack Obama is out of the question. Sure, McCain is a moderate that you really can't get too excited about, but he's pro-life, and a vote for him keeps Obama out. These reasons, those of the life issue and the prevention of Obama from wreaking havoc on the country, are enough to get me to go to the polls on November fourth. And yet, some have decided not to vote at all. They think both parties blow chunks, and I don't blame them. Shall I call them irresponsible? Apathetic, perhaps?

I would suggest that the informed, third-party citizens in this country are not apathetic in choosing not to vote, nor are they abandoning their responsibilities to public life. It may be the case that these people care too much to vote for a “lesser evil”. I must admit, I have the same worries concerning this presidential election. Today's Neo-Republican's aren't Conservatives at all, they are yesterday's Democrats. McCain supports the buying up of home mortgages, and he stood up for the bailout bill. Modern Liberals are radical progressives who promote fascism. So what do you do? Go along with the tide, vote for the person who will least likely, or maybe delay, the inevitable dictatorship this country is facing? Face it, folks. If Obama gets in, you can imagine a future where everyone drives little electric cars because gas is evil. Imagine that you have to wait in line at a hospital because your poor mom, who might have a chronic disease, is on a wait list. Why? Because some crack addict wants an abortion, and Big Brother has decided that taxpayer dollars are better spent on her. Some of you might be smiling and shaking your heads, thinking I've forgotten the constitution. Don't be silly, Miss Harris! We have rights!

You wanna bet? Tell that to the little oligarchy, a.k.a the Supreme Court, who overturned individual state power and shoved Roe v. Wade down this country's throat. Tell that to the feds who knock on your door to seize your property under Eminent Domain. Tell that to the Congress who passed a bailout bill that will eventually crush the free market. Point is, your rights are being trampled on, my friend. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what was happening today. America has been steeped in socialism and we've finally graduated to fascism. There has been a slow buildup of executive power over the years, and the bailout has zipped it shut. Imagine what would happen if some ego-maniacal, narcissistic blow hard, who happens to think he's the messiah, gets into the oval office? I suggest that we're not too far from violently enforced fascism. (Have your heard about the 'Obama Truth Squad?')

First, let's address the Catholic question. Why should we bother? You might say it's all fixed, your vote doesn't count, etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states, “As far as possible, citizens should take and active part in public life.” (CCC 1915) This is certainly good advice. Catholics have a responsibility to promote the well-being of others, to strive to transform their society by supporting the correct application of moral principles. To say that religion must not effect political decisions is absurd. “A great trouble in modern political discussions,” says Chesterton, “is that the very things which we consider quite clear and practical when we are talking about our private affairs are considered somewhat vague and sentimental if we apply them to public affairs. Practical politicians are always cracking jokes about the absurdity of religious people who want to have in their schools the “atmosphere” of one creed. But these politicians all take care to send their own sons to schools where there is a much narrower thing-the atmosphere of one class. The truth is, of course, that every man, in dealing with his own affairs and in the enjoyment of his own wits, knows that atmosphere is the most practical thing in the world- perhaps the only practical thing in the world. The difference between Heaven and Hell is only a difference of atmosphere. “ (p. 199, Collected works Vol. XXVIII)

I suppose the Pro-Choice camp thinks that they're clever when they label Catholics 'one issue voters'. It is a coined stock phrase that labels religious people as narrow-minded and naive. We're a bunch of bitter hicks who cling to guns and God. What they don't realize is that what looks to be one issue, that of abortion, effects many other issues. If effects health care, foreign policy, the economy, and our very way of life. Under Clinton's pro-death administration, we forced South American countries to legalize abortion, under the threat of not providing foreign food aid. Foreign affairs aside, abortion devastates us here at home. Our economy is suffering because we are killing our children. We might have been able to pay off some of the Social Security debt if the some 50 million unborn children weren't being murdered every day. Abortion is a huge industry, and very soon our tax dollars will fuel it, regardless of whatever an individual's values are. If Obama is elected, you can expect taxpayer funding of abortion, and the rationing of health care.

What else can you expect of Barack Obama? “The first thing I'll do as president,” he states, “is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” What is the Freedom of Choice Act? It's a bill that will make partial-birth abortion legal again and force taxpayers to pay for state-funded abortions. Obama voted four times (some of his few 'yes' votes out of his magnitude of non-responses,) against a bill that would provide care for babies who were born alive after abortions.(www.nrlc.org) The absolute horror I experience when looking at a man who actually promotes infanticide is enough for me to vote against him.

If the life issue isn't enough for you, I encourage you to research Obama's connections. Did I mention the fact that he's related to a fascist who promotes mass genocide? I'm speaking of his cousin, Raila Odinga. Obama actually went to Kenya to support Odinga, a man whose supporters burned down a church with the women and children still inside, hacking down those trying to flee with a machete. The violence was post-election, because he didn't win. If you don't believe me, look it up on You Tube. It's not like a have some secret source of information that's being withheld from the common public.¹ 1,500 Kenyans were killed by February 2008, all under the exact same slogan of “change.”² In April 2008, Odinga was sworn in as Prime Minister of Kenya in order to quell the violence. Rawanda, anyone? Do we really want someone who supports leaders like this, who has these extremist ties, to step foot into the White House? I certainly don't.

Returning to the Catechism, it also says, “The participation of all in realizing the common good calls for a continually renewed conversion of the social partners.” (CCC 1916) The key word here is renew. I think most people would agree, seeing the shoddy state of our economy and the gross abuses of executive power, that this country needs a healthy dose of reform. Not anarchy, not even a revolution, a reform. Thomas Jefferson had a good sense of this, and in one of his letters, he states, “Should [reformers] attempt more than the established habits of the people are ripe for, they may lose all and retard indefinitely the ultimate object of their aim." The Boston Tea Party , for example, was the start of a much needed reform. I think the term 'American Revolution' is a misnomer. It was not a social upheaval of a way of life, it was a pack of informed people telling the government they could take their taxes and stick it, respectively.

And so, I would like to make an appeal to those out there who have given up, who have decided not to vote. I hear you. I sympathize. I don't think you are apathetic, I think you want Americans to participate, to work together to bring about the reform this country needs. But don't forget the advice Thomas Jefferson left us. The people of America aren't ready yet. Apathy is the enemy we face, because it is what keeps reform from getting off the ground, and apathy is what cuts off real change at the knees. If you don't vote, you may be throwing away our chances. I would suggest that not voting is, in effect, a vote for Obama.

A vote for McCain is at least vote for life, not to mention a ticket that is sympathetic with third-party views. The private sector has a better chance of being heard under the Republican Candidates. "Fiscally speaking,” says Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, “the private sector can do a better job than government can do...also just trusting individuals to make wise decisions for themselves and families. I have a lot of trust in individuals. I don't trust government nearly as much." I think we need people like this in government. Change isn't instantaneous. It takes time, thought, preparation, and the participation of the people.

Get informed, get involved, or lose your freedom. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

1http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/video-obama-odinga-socialism-marxism.html

2http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/

Obama: all he does is talk and write!

(below is a link to a YouTube Video of Gingrich defending Palin with his usual cutlass we all know and love.)
Click here to watch it!

When reporter Rob Allen made a quick remark about Palin's resume, he probably didn't think he'd walk away with his face melted off.

"[Her] Resume's stronger than Obama's!" Gingrich replied. "She's been a real mayor, real governor,.....been in charge of the Alaska national guard, she's a whistle-blower who turned in a chairman of her own party...... I don't know of a single thing Obama's done but talk and write!"

The Dems. don't have anything on Palin. Any criticisim they throw at her looks hypocritical on their part, since they have to be thinking, "Oh #$%! Now we have to talk about political experience? We're screwed!"

If they try to write her off as 'inexperienced" they suddenly have to account for Obama's magnanimous inexperience. Really, if they gave a hoot about experience, why'd they nominate Obama? He's spent his (little) time in the Senate campaigning, not doing anything. (Well, I suppose he voted "present" about 100 times...)

All he does is talk about change, he doesn't do anything about it. He has a bunch of blovation, Palin has actual accomplishments. When someone asks Palin what she's done, she smiles and begins counting her fingers, relating how she's prevented wasteful spending and cut taxes, giving examples of her tenatcity, her willingness to put the people first. And she says all of this with confidence.

Obama says "Uhh" a lot and stumbles around crucial issues like abortion, using excuses like, “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He must see the danger he's in, that of being compared to Palin, and he's going to react defensively. He's already scraping at the bottom of the barrel, going so far as to use his undergraduate major to prove his qualification for the presidency.

"Well, actually," He said, "my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, someone who has studied overseas. I majored in International Relations."

You'd think, having a B.A. in International Relations would teach him that, hey, people over in Germany can't vote for you! Whooops!


The Democrats should change their slogan from 'CHANGE' to 'OH $%#@!'

Hubba-Hubba Sarah Palin!

OH YEA!

I can't express how excessively thrilled I am. I used to fantasize that McCain would pick Palin as his running mate, but then I’d tell myself to stop daydreaming.

Palin is Pro-Life Pro-Gun, Pro-drilling, and has enough balls to tell Congress to get out of her face. “Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,” she said. Anyone who disses Nancy Pelosi is good in my book. But again, I thought it would only be in my dreams; I figured we’d get stuck with some old suit.

And then John McCain surprised me. As I am learning, this element of surprise seems to be one of his unique characteristics. As Deborah Fikes expressed, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals,

“I didn’t think the Republicans would pick a female candidate for another decade, but John McCain is not a typical conservative leader.”

He is not typical. This is a brilliant move. Less that 14 hours after the Democratic Convention Republicans have swiped the hype. The Democrats were all dumbstruck in wide-eyed horror while Conservatives cried with joy. (Well, at least I personally know some Conservative women who cried with joy, and we didn't "cry our eyelashes off" like Opera. )

Palin is 100% genuine, nothing to hide and nothing to hold back. She gives straightforward answers, unlike Uhhhh-bama. (The only difference between 'Obama' and 'Osama' is a little BS. Hear that one before?)

Camille Paglia, Democrat, had this to say: "That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails."

I am excited, genuinely thrilled, to go to the polls this year. I can't wait to see what she does next.

Below are news links relating to her:

Sarah Palin: Conservatives find their dream girl

Palin's Hubby and Son not Republicans

Sarah Palin Big Oil

Sarah Palin-Kuwait Gallery

"Civil Union", the latest euphemism

First post of 2007! I just want to say that this blog has been sorely neglected this year. I could offer a plethora of excuses but I'll spare you the “live journal-esque” details.

Alright, let's start this off with a quote from Ronald Reagan:

“Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for those reasons among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of the forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.”

The issue of gay marriage, or perhaps I could use the common euphemism, “civil union” is a pertinent topic in politics today. In fact, politicians who advocate gay rights claim that they support civil unions because gay couples do not have the legal rights of married couples.

To quote John Kerry, the fountain of all wisdom: “What we're talking about is somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, someone's right to pass on property, someone's right to live equally under the state laws as other people in the country.”

Now that's interesting. And a bit absurd. The argument for civil unions: gays are denied their ordinary, everyday civil rights. The way people go on about this, you would think there were “Straights Only” sections in restaurants. (Forget smoking, I don't want to sit by this queer.)

Homosexuals live equally under the state laws just like everyone else. They don't need special legislation. As far as I know, you can leave your property to your albino parrot if you so wish; you just need to write a will. Gay couples do not need marriage in order to bequeath their belongings and inheritance to their significant other. Nothing stops them from signing a joint lease and owning a house.

See, when a state recognizes a marriage it bestows costly benefits on the couple. It would be ridiculous to bestow the same costs on gay couples. Adam Kolasinski, who writes for The Tech, explains this thoroughly: “Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. “

Point being, there is no reason why the state should grant homosexual couples state funds when their partnership does not help with the propagation of the human race. Marriage for gays, according to the secular view, is impractical. ( Kolasinski's excellent article can be found here: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html)

Civil unions could also be abused; what's to stop people from lying and trying to snatch government benefits? I now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry, anyone?

And so, since this cannot be a civil rights issue, it must be a moral issue. No matter how many times you spout the impracticality of gay marriage, look up statistics and calculate the costs, the real issue is just under the surface.

“Homosexual acts are sinful (as are heterosexual acts outside of marriage.) insofar as they are freely chosen acts of disobedience to God's known will and law. Homosexual desires are disordered; they are troubles, but not sins, unless freely chosen by the will” (Peter J. Kreet, Catholic Christianity)

Homosexual desires, as said, are not sins. The desire to be an alcoholic is not a sin either. People who have no control over their passions destroy their will, and everyone has a tendency towards certain sins. Drunken acts are sinful, as are homosexual acts; they are disordered desires.

Now I bet you are wondering how I can say that homosexuals are disordered. (Holy crap, she said something definitive! How could she!?”)If “God made them that way” why don't I just shut my trap and let them be? If someone has a problem, of course you should try to help them overcome it. “God made that kleptomaniac the way he is! Don't you go near him!” What's next? Will people with Psychological Impulse Disorders be ignored because “that's the way God made them”?

Disorders should be dealt with, not encouraged.

The Stachowicz Murder

Podcast length: 5 min 7 sec

The Stachowicz Murder

(if there are problems with the link try copying and pasting this URL:
http://www.freewebs.com/beckysart/Stachowicz%5FMurder.mp3 )

Hello everyone, long time no post. I decided to try a podcast. You can access it via the title of this post; if the podcast concept isn't your cup of tea you may content yourself with the show notes.

I just read an article on WorldNetDaily, about the murder of a woman named Mary Stachowicz. This woman was killed in the year of 2002; she was 51, she was a mother of four, and the article mentions that she was a faithful Catholic Church member.

She was stabbed, and stabbed with such a ferocity that the hunting blade that did the
deed was bent. This guy that went at her was so bloodthirsty that his knife bent.
She was also strangled, raped-this a 51 year old woman we are talking about here; she
could be a grandmother- she was raped and beaten, and her body stuffed into a crawl space
under the floor of an apartment.

Her murderer is a man by the name of Nicholas Gutierrez, 23. His attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, said in her opening remarks that Mary was the one who attacked Gutierrez with her verbalassault, and this sparked his response.

What did this woman SAY to him?

alright- well here's what she said: She asked him-really- why he was a homosexual. She asked him why he liked boys instead of girls. This justified his rage, and this is why he attacked. Who is the victim here?

If someone asks me why Im a Catholic, a Christian, Im not going to whip out a hunting blade cut someone to ribbons.

It's because she asked him if he was a homosexual, implying that she thought something was WRONG with that, and deep down he knows something is wrong with it, and when he realized that, he got enraged and before you know it: dead Catholic lady!

Now I am going to quote a blogger by the name of James Wagner, he is supposuvley a gay man, but this is what he had to say:

"The woman who did SUCH GREAT EVIL is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the Church and the society which creates it is not (dead), and it will CONTINUE to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I SHAKE, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and
fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man so terribly damaged by his society."

See what Im thinking now is why he said Gutierrez was "damaged"...is he implying that his lifestyle isnt... NORMAL? he really implies that his own and every other homosexual out there is misunderstood and DAMAGED.

If they want to be understood, what did Mary do wrong by ASKING Gutierrez why he
chose to live the way he did?

In one corner we have a man fascinated with his anus and what can go up it,
the other corner a Catholic old woman who goes to Mass every Sunday.
There is something wrong with him, she showed him the truth of that, and instead
of trying to deduce how he should really live his life, he completely rejected it.

I have to say I admire this woman. Standing up for what you know is right is a very hard thing to do. One of her friends, a woman named May Coleman, said Mary had a soft voice, and could see her saying something like"God wouldn't approve of the way you are living your life" she says that "Thats just how Mary did things."

I hope that this woman is an example for Catholics-Christians, because what she did was very brave. It takes alot of guts to speak whats right.

Which brings me to my conclusion; I should probably tell my parents to prepare a eulogy for me in case someone is offended by this podcast; namely men who like little boys- you know, thatcrowd.

the atricle can be found in my blog
entry on World Net Daily.com

Im Rebecca Harris, the Conservative
White Chick, signing off.

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
(copy and paste)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52711

Korea

I just read this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/19/060619174146.pod3ejuy.html

Now honestly, did anyone NOT see this coming?

"Oh we wont launch Nuclear missles! hahah"

BOOM

Hey Illegal Mexican guy, want my money?

This immigration bill is the worst thing that could happen to the USA. Not only will it allow illegal aliens amnesty, it will more than likely be the cause of the catastrophic downfall of American culture as we know it. California is pretty much quasi Mexico; If this new "Path to Citizenship" bill passes, the rest of the country will follow suit.

Like I said, this bill grants amnesty to illegals. Those aliens that have committed identity theft, those aliens that have stolen American Social Security numbers so that they can get jobs, this bill forgives them. It’s a freebie felony. Not suppose to be here? That’s ok, we forgive you! Too bad that those other immigrants who tried to genuinely enter the country legally didn’t break the law like you did, you Mexican you!

If you aren’t mad yet, you will be when you find out about the money involved in this. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation will increase federal spending by at least $45 billion in the first ten years.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation says that the Senate bill will be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. If this bill is passed, we suddenly have lots of new low-class citizens with low incomes who qualify for welfare. The estimated cost of this result is purported to be around $580 billion a YEAR.

So the bill legalizes 10 million immigrants. They, in turn, are allowed to bring their parents and relations to the states. More low-income workers who qualify for more welfare. Its not rocket science, the numbers are going up. More people more money.

(Oh and one more thing to make your insides boil with indignation - illegal immigrants from Mexico qualify for affirmative action. This allows them to enter U.S. colleges with lower grades than Americans.)

So, the illegal aliens who are stealing our social security numbers and getting welfare will be allowed to stay. And you have to pay for it, my friend.