The Defeatist Voter
I wanted to make a few remarks on some of the comments that were left below, re: Fr. Smith's homily on Kerry/Bush. I understand the responses, but at the same time, the comments indicate that the truth about Bush just isn't hitting home.
So let's paint a more blunt picture, shall we?
Kerry is dead wrong on the positions of ... abortion, embyro research, cloning, euthanasia, gay marriage). But Bush has a pretty fair standing on these issues.
That's precisely Fr. Smith's point: no, Bush does not have a good standing on these issues. He may have a better standing than Kerry, but we're not talking about evil vs. more-evil, we're talking about good vs. evil - and Bush is not good. He's just less evil.
Bush condones abortion. That's the issue. He may call for fewer abortions per year than Kerry, but doggone it, kids, he's still killing babies.
Let me say that again: Bush is killing innocent babies. He is not pro-life, he's just a little less pro-death.
Everyone runs to the partial-birth-abortion ban and says, "See? Bush is pro-life!"
But folks, read the text of the ban. It explicitly states that a doctor who performs a partial birth abortion - defined as (are you ready for this?), "an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant" - is liable to punishment. The doctor may be fined or imprisoned for 2 years.
All well and good. But, the ban says that this penalty does not apply to "a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
So, this is - according to the ban - a "gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited," yet in the end, if the life of the mother is endangered, then go right ahead and suck that baby's brains out.
And we're supposed to think this constitutes a serious pro-life stance on the part of President Bush? Are you joking???
President Bush was asked on the Larry King Show (2/15/00) if he agreed with the "exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?" He answered in the affirmative.
I'm sorry, but this is not a pro-life position. He agrees that women ought to be allowed to murder their own children if those children were conceived through incest or rape, or if the life of the mother is in danger (a loophole through which you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks).
As Dr. Tom Drolesky rightly asked, why are we supposed to trust a doctor to tell the truth on an abortion form when that all-important question is asked ("Was the life of the mother in danger?"), if that man is willing to murder an innocent child? If there is no honor among thieves, certainly you don't expect there to be honor and integrity among murderers?
the Supreme Court has more power than any other group of people in the United States and Bush is much more likely to introduce justices who will stand correctly on these five issues than Kerry
Got some bad news for you. Bush has proven that when it comes to giving his support to pro-life leaders, his Skull and Bones allegiance trumps his lukewarm pro-life values.
Just this year, Pat Toomey challenged Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Specter is a flaming liberal who openly supports Roe v. Wade, actually voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, opposed giving the Boy Scouts access to school buildings until they started allowing homosexual Scout leaders, supported Clinton in the impeachment trial, voted for Justice Ruth Ginzburg, and was against Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.
Oh yeah, and he just happens to be a Freemason. A Freemason and a Skull and Bones member - how ... coincidental. Make of that what you will, but ultimately it's an interesting side issue which in no way affects the reality of what happened in the primary election.
You've got Specter, the pro-death incumbent, against Toomey, who is 100% pro-life. Who did President Bush support? You know darn well who he supported.
What makes you think he's going to support pro-life justices?
The bottom line, IMO, is that it's better to use my vote for damage control, and possibly a small step back towards morality (Bush has made a couple improvements over Clinton), than to throw it away in protest, and end up going downhill even faster.
Ladies and Gentleman, we have got to learn to stop seeing this election in a defeatist manner. Where on earth did we get this idea that we're just hopelessly stuck with having to choose the lesser of two evils?
Let me make this very clear. The choices on the ballot this year are not Bush and Kerry; the choices are, Mr. and Mrs. Voter, would you like a lot of babies butchered in the next 4 years, or only a moderate amount of babies butchered in the next 4 years?
Somebody please tell me why it is ok to cast my vote, to give my assent, to the proposition that 20,000 babies should be killed this year? Or 10,000 babies? Or 2,000, or 150, or 5, or doggone-it, even one baby?
Have we lost our minds?!
Are you really prepared to stand before God and say, "Yes, I willingly voted for and supported an evil ruler, and yes, I gave my assent to the slaughtering of innocent children"?
Well, but if I don't vote for Bush, then I'm throwing away my vote and will be responsible for Kerry's victory, right?
What kind of ethical logic is that? I will not be responsible for Kerry getting into office, the people who voted for him will be responsible for that. What I will be responsible for is voting for Bush, who is - by most people's admission, let it be said - the "lesser of two evils." But the lesser of two evils is still evil, so the question remains: are you willing to stand before God and say "Yes, I supported evil?"
For my part, I'm determined to stand before God and say, "No, I did not support that evil man, nor did I support his even-more-evil opponent; I did not see a candidate who was righteous, and so I sacrificed my so-called 'right' to vote in order to not give my assent to evil."
So what will it be, folks? 100 million babies slaughtered this next term, or 10 million babies slaughtered this next term? I don't know about you, but I'm going to vote "No more babies slaughtered, period," and if no one hears my lone voice screaming in the crowd, at least I can say I tried to do the right thing - even if no one listened.
Just let it be understood: if you cast your vote for Bush, you are tacitly approving of his pro-abortion stance, and you are giving your consent to his pro-sodomite "unions" stance - because you know he stands for those things, and you explicitly said "yes" to him. If you cave into the "well, these are my only two choices, so I have to pick the lesser of two evils" mantra that has lulled 99% of voting Christians to sleep in 2004, then you're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem.
Wake up, America. This country is not our true country, for we have our citizenship in higher places; we'd better start acting like it, before our ballot cards eventually get to the point where we have to choose between Hitler and Stalin.
So let's paint a more blunt picture, shall we?
Kerry is dead wrong on the positions of ... abortion, embyro research, cloning, euthanasia, gay marriage). But Bush has a pretty fair standing on these issues.
That's precisely Fr. Smith's point: no, Bush does not have a good standing on these issues. He may have a better standing than Kerry, but we're not talking about evil vs. more-evil, we're talking about good vs. evil - and Bush is not good. He's just less evil.
Bush condones abortion. That's the issue. He may call for fewer abortions per year than Kerry, but doggone it, kids, he's still killing babies.
Let me say that again: Bush is killing innocent babies. He is not pro-life, he's just a little less pro-death.
Everyone runs to the partial-birth-abortion ban and says, "See? Bush is pro-life!"
But folks, read the text of the ban. It explicitly states that a doctor who performs a partial birth abortion - defined as (are you ready for this?), "an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant" - is liable to punishment. The doctor may be fined or imprisoned for 2 years.
All well and good. But, the ban says that this penalty does not apply to "a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
So, this is - according to the ban - a "gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited," yet in the end, if the life of the mother is endangered, then go right ahead and suck that baby's brains out.
And we're supposed to think this constitutes a serious pro-life stance on the part of President Bush? Are you joking???
President Bush was asked on the Larry King Show (2/15/00) if he agreed with the "exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?" He answered in the affirmative.
I'm sorry, but this is not a pro-life position. He agrees that women ought to be allowed to murder their own children if those children were conceived through incest or rape, or if the life of the mother is in danger (a loophole through which you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks).
As Dr. Tom Drolesky rightly asked, why are we supposed to trust a doctor to tell the truth on an abortion form when that all-important question is asked ("Was the life of the mother in danger?"), if that man is willing to murder an innocent child? If there is no honor among thieves, certainly you don't expect there to be honor and integrity among murderers?
the Supreme Court has more power than any other group of people in the United States and Bush is much more likely to introduce justices who will stand correctly on these five issues than Kerry
Got some bad news for you. Bush has proven that when it comes to giving his support to pro-life leaders, his Skull and Bones allegiance trumps his lukewarm pro-life values.
Just this year, Pat Toomey challenged Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Specter is a flaming liberal who openly supports Roe v. Wade, actually voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, opposed giving the Boy Scouts access to school buildings until they started allowing homosexual Scout leaders, supported Clinton in the impeachment trial, voted for Justice Ruth Ginzburg, and was against Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.
Oh yeah, and he just happens to be a Freemason. A Freemason and a Skull and Bones member - how ... coincidental. Make of that what you will, but ultimately it's an interesting side issue which in no way affects the reality of what happened in the primary election.
You've got Specter, the pro-death incumbent, against Toomey, who is 100% pro-life. Who did President Bush support? You know darn well who he supported.
What makes you think he's going to support pro-life justices?
The bottom line, IMO, is that it's better to use my vote for damage control, and possibly a small step back towards morality (Bush has made a couple improvements over Clinton), than to throw it away in protest, and end up going downhill even faster.
Ladies and Gentleman, we have got to learn to stop seeing this election in a defeatist manner. Where on earth did we get this idea that we're just hopelessly stuck with having to choose the lesser of two evils?
Let me make this very clear. The choices on the ballot this year are not Bush and Kerry; the choices are, Mr. and Mrs. Voter, would you like a lot of babies butchered in the next 4 years, or only a moderate amount of babies butchered in the next 4 years?
Somebody please tell me why it is ok to cast my vote, to give my assent, to the proposition that 20,000 babies should be killed this year? Or 10,000 babies? Or 2,000, or 150, or 5, or doggone-it, even one baby?
Have we lost our minds?!
Are you really prepared to stand before God and say, "Yes, I willingly voted for and supported an evil ruler, and yes, I gave my assent to the slaughtering of innocent children"?
Well, but if I don't vote for Bush, then I'm throwing away my vote and will be responsible for Kerry's victory, right?
What kind of ethical logic is that? I will not be responsible for Kerry getting into office, the people who voted for him will be responsible for that. What I will be responsible for is voting for Bush, who is - by most people's admission, let it be said - the "lesser of two evils." But the lesser of two evils is still evil, so the question remains: are you willing to stand before God and say "Yes, I supported evil?"
For my part, I'm determined to stand before God and say, "No, I did not support that evil man, nor did I support his even-more-evil opponent; I did not see a candidate who was righteous, and so I sacrificed my so-called 'right' to vote in order to not give my assent to evil."
So what will it be, folks? 100 million babies slaughtered this next term, or 10 million babies slaughtered this next term? I don't know about you, but I'm going to vote "No more babies slaughtered, period," and if no one hears my lone voice screaming in the crowd, at least I can say I tried to do the right thing - even if no one listened.
Just let it be understood: if you cast your vote for Bush, you are tacitly approving of his pro-abortion stance, and you are giving your consent to his pro-sodomite "unions" stance - because you know he stands for those things, and you explicitly said "yes" to him. If you cave into the "well, these are my only two choices, so I have to pick the lesser of two evils" mantra that has lulled 99% of voting Christians to sleep in 2004, then you're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem.
Wake up, America. This country is not our true country, for we have our citizenship in higher places; we'd better start acting like it, before our ballot cards eventually get to the point where we have to choose between Hitler and Stalin.
<< Home