Reagan Catholics Could Propel Trump

Murray sums up the case for Catholics very nicely. There is no way a Catholic of good conscious can vote against Donald Trump.

It's past time that citizens--Catholic, Protestant, and others who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in Creator-endowed rights and liberty--speak out to defend against this outright assault from Clinton's campaign and her entire "progressive" movement whose ideology makes population control the centerprise of their coercive agenda.

Understanding the ideology, and all that it incorporates, sheds light on the grave threats to freedom for individuals.

Until now, there has been a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting "destroying" of human life in the womb. Does no one ask the question, "Why is abortion, even late-term, the most important item on the agenda of a woman who claims to speak for the children?"

On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.

There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

I think Catholics, like any other Americans, feel betrayed by both Democrats and Republicans. Neither party adequately reflects their values and patriotism.
This is why Trump will win handily IMHO.

American bishops sometimes slyly point their croziers toward the pro-life candidate.

Many of them don't. Especially not the ones who were from Democratic households or were influenced by Marxists in the 1960s. This variety of bishop dislikes pro-lifers, hates the military, and avoids or undermines the Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage and even sodomy. There are great bishops and awful ones.

On life and family issues, Chaput is one of the good guys, and one of the smartest. But on immigration, he's a hopeless wet. That's why he hates Trump.

There are bishops who dream that the implosion of Catholics actually attending Mass on Sunday can be reversed by bringing in Mexicans and Central Americans who don't attend Mass on Sunday. They find that prospect less scary than doing the obvious: going out-front with the Church's actual teaching, and with beautiful, reverent liturgy, no holds barred--and seeing people line up to get in. That's what happens when an orthodox priest takes over a parish.

Before wikileaks confirmed that Democrats plan to overthrow the authority of the Papacy Trump was leading with Catholics 57/33.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1182a12016ElectionPredebate.pdf

Now it is probably 60/30 or better. With the Catholic bishop of Denver finally saying according to Canon Law, that it is a sin to knowingly vote for a promoter of abortion - read a Democrat - and the bishop of Philadelphia calling Clinton a scheming robotic liar things are not getting better for the Democrats with Catholics.

There are lots of Catholics FReepers who I haven’t seen around here since Cruz got his ass handed to him in the primaries. They were too sanctimonious to vote for Trump. Hope they’re happy when Hitlery unleashes full on persecution at us. They can blame themselves for helping her get elected.

Absolutely. No sane Catholic can endorse any godless Democrat or Republican who advocates killing babies or making sodomy into a virtue.

Worldview matters. When you fundamentally destroy the dignity of human beings by removing Right Reason and Natural Law from our “Justice” System, it becomes irrational and evil law. Evil, irrational law is always unconstitutional, anyhow.

“Catholic nuns are the unselfish motherly backbone of the church, whether they are feeding the homeless, nursing the sick or schooling children..”

A common misconception.

A major distinction between a nun and a religious sister is that nuns are members of enclosed (cloistered) religious orders and take solemn religious vows - poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Sisters (otoh) take what is known as ‘simple vows’ and serve God by feeding the homeless, nursing the sick or schooling children.

Could is the operative word

If you count Latino Catholics then they won’t

Catholics in general vote democrat more than GOP by a few points

It used to be more but white Catholics have become more GOP voting and Latinos dilute that

So who knows

I think it’s reasonable that white Catholics may vote for Trump in numbers not seen for 30 years

Will Latino turnout offset that

I doubt it

I’ll going on record catholic vote is 52-53% for Trump overall

Beside Latinos I think the reason Catholics vote more left than say Suburban southern Baptists is several

They are more urban

They are more nominally religious via birth and creed generally

I know a lot of folks who call themselves Catholics only because they were born that way....like Jews..,,it’s an identity for some

Hence they are considered religious even though they are not

Religious Catholics are more conservative..,.not all but most

But given they are the biggest single denomination it matters how they think

I don’t think Catholics are more liberal than others due to Catholicism unless it’s misinterpreted

Doctrinaire Catholicism seems to me very conservative philosophically

The American Catholic bishops are still worshipping at the shrine of FDR. Younger Catholics have no memory of him.

But Mexicans and Central Americans often do attend Mass on Sundays.

However, they only put small change into the collection baskets.

So I guess it all depends upon what their goal is, doesn’t it.

The fact that so many Catholic Charities and splinter organizations are grossly endowed by federal government is at the root of the issue.

The Catholic Church is ‘making a killing’ off all the newcomers. Multimillions for resettlement and services.

Re : Post #2 ~

“When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?”

Excellent !

I was born over fifty years ago; American by birth, Irish/Catholic by the grace of God. Born in the greatest country that ever existed - by any measure. A most glorious nation founded upon the principle that all men were created equal. The Founding Fathers understood themselves to be creatures, each one infinitely blessed by their Creator.

Sadly, that deontological tenet has increasingly been usurped by the social doctrines of our times; and this more than any other single factor has caused the incremental destruction we witness daily in our beloved ‘Nation under God’.

Liberty and justice for all cannot possibly be achieved by man. The Founders knew that man is utterly incapable of governing his fellow man justly, without adhering to God’s law. They all understood that the foundations for governmental justice and liberty must stem from the ultimate source of all justice and liberties, id est, Almighty God. A quote from James Madison expressed their beliefs succinctly, “Any country not ruled by the Ten Commandments will be ruled by tyrants.”

The word around my Church is that Hillary is on record (and off record) that she wants to all but eliminate the Catholic Church.

Would the Catholic hospitals and schools be far behind?

That plus her pro-death stance is all that’s needed for true Catholics to know about her.

On 10/13, Chaput wrote-

http://archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-weekly-column-about-those-unthinking-backward-catholics/

I was at a small gathering on Saturday morning (yesterday). There were twelve of us there, and all but about two were Hispanic, Philippino, or Black.

This was a religion based discussion based on the book, Kingdom Men.

During the discussion one Hispanic gentleman touched on the election by saying this (paraphrased), “You know, I don’t want to bring politics into this, but Christians aren’t all that safe here, and I think folks better think about things before they vote.”

He was obviously talking about Clinton’s comments regarding Catholics. Hispanics are Catholic centric.

I don’t think Clinton has any idea how far down her own throat she shoved her foot.

VIDEO: DAM you Hillary Clinton I am a Catholic Gay American Women, how dare you !!!!! You will never be my President you Hate all of us Americans

https://www.facebook.com/reportingfrommybasket/videos/1128437100578593/?pnref=story

You mean the same Catholics that Hillary’s people call “backwards”?

Thanks for your posts.

Hillary's campaign manager, Podesta's, decades-long battle (People for the American Way) to remove and eradicate America's faith-based foundations and replace with a counterfeit idea, is now being exposed for what it is. The picture is not pretty and, like all other such short-sighted historical efforts, will fail.

So-called "progressives" of both Parties in recent times, portray themselves as the "intellectual" elite, although they may be totally bereft of any real knowledge or understanding of the great ideas which were the seedbed of Ameria's successful 200-year experiment in liberty.

Today's so-called "progressives," with all of their domination of academia and Far Left politics, seem to fit into a category described in an essay by T.S. Eliot on Virgil:

"In our time, when men seem more than ever to confuse wisdom with knowledge and knowledge with information and to try to solve the problems of life in terms of engineering, there is coming into existence a new kind of provincialism which perhaps deserves a new name. It is a provincialism not of space but of time--one for which history is merely a chronicle of human devices which have served their turn and have been scrapped, one for which the world is the property solely of the living, a property in which the dead hold no share."(Bold added for emphasis)

Without intellectual anchoring in the enduring ideas which provided the philosophical foundation of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution, their vain imaginations of superiority only expose their limited world view.

Yet, the America which rose from obscurity to greatness, from crude hoes and axes to putting a man on the moon, and from oppression by King George to a symbol of liberty for millions all over the world--that America provides shelter for them, even as they attempt to "change" her into something unimagined by the Founders, and ungrounded in Constitutional principles.

If they are allowed to succeed in their own little provincial experiment, their posterity never will know the "blessings of Liberty" proclaimed by the Preamble to America's Constitution.

See excerpts: The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

By Editorial Staff
Published December 22, 2007

Nineteenth century writer H.L. Hastings once forcibly illustrated the unique way in which the Bible has withstood the attacks of skepticism:

“Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt.

“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”"(End excerpt)

Now, read an excerpt from John Quincy Adams's Jubilee Address, delivered in April 1839, in New York City, which recaps the real history of the founding of America and the framing of its Constitution:

Excerpts: “The motive for the Declaration of Independence was on its face avowed to be "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Its purpose to declare the causes which impelled the people of the English colonies on the continent of North America, to separate themselves from the political community of the British nation. They declare only, the causes of their separation, but they announce at the same time their assumption of the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, among the powers of the earth.
“Thus their first movement is to recognize and appeal to the laws of nature and to nature's God, for their right to assume the attributes of sovereign power as an independent nation.
“The causes of their necessary separation, for they begin and end by declaring it necessary, alleged in the Declaration, are all founded on the same laws of nature and of nature's God - and hence as preliminary to the enumeration of the causes of separation, they set forth as self-evident truths, the rights of individual man, by the laws of nature and of nature's God, to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness. That all men are created equal. That to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All this is by the laws of nature and of nature's God, and of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government. It avers, also, that governments are instituted to secure these rights of nature and of nature's God, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of THE PEOPLE to alter, or to abolish it, and to institute a new government - to throw off a government degenerating into despotism, and to provide new guards for their future security. They proceed then to say that such was then the situation of the Colonies, and such the necessity which constrained them to alter their former systems of government.”

Since Roman times during the occupation of Israel, the teachings of God have come under attack. Christians were persecuted, crucified, and enslaved.

The central focus of Jewish and Christian faiths was killed, although all Jews don’t recognize this.

Over the centuries Christians have been rounded up, killed, and the Bible attempted to be eradicated.

Scriptures were deemed too deep for the common man to read for centuries. Church leaders were as hostile as some who hated Christianity altogether.

And yet the Bible remains and those who sought to destroy it go nameless in most instances.