The Maverick’s Secrets Revealed

September 26th, 2008 by alftansr

I’m onto Sen. McCain. Or, rather, he’s confirming what I’ve always suspected about him.

He rushed to Washington to fix the economy, yet, according to an AP story*, all he
said was, ‘I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for.’

That’s all well and good, but where’s the leadership? However, because I don’t support the bailout, this is one time that I’ll take no leadership over bad leadership (as in the case with Obama). That doesn’t mean I don’t want leadership, though! I expect a former navy officer to be able to lead. Isn’t that something the Navy teaches?

Failed expectations reveal truths, though, and revealed it has been. The reason he’s being so quiet at these meetings is because he’s waiting to hear which way the public outcry is going! He will lead once he knows what the People want. He’s not going to take a stand for anything…until he knows which is the popular way to stand.

This also explains why he wants to delay the debate. The economy will certainly play a major role in the debate, and he doesn’t want to argue for an unpopular position.

It’s a welcome change for an elected official to listen to the People. Ideally, our leaders would be principled people who stand up for what is right: people we elect to represent us because we know that they’ll legislate and govern justly.. But principles of the Obama variety–taxpayers should pay for bad mortgages–aren’t ideal, either.

I haven’t been a fan of either candidate so far, and that’s probably not going to change. But, as the campaign wears on, at least things like this show the candidates’ true colors. It doesn’t make the choice any easier, but at least we’ll know what to expect from the winner.

* http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/26/ap5474549.html

Props 100 and 101

September 26th, 2008 by alftansr

This is bizarre. My previous political life was in California. A place where the NIMBYs were few and the RINOs were many. A place where asking the government’s permission was the norm. A place where it’s a felony to kill a horse if you’re going to eat it but completely legal if you’re going to feed it to your dog.

Arizona is like another country. Proposition 100 is a constitutional amendment that would bar the government from creating any taxes on the transfer of land. It’s not that Arizona has a problem with too many land transfer taxes…it doesn’t have any! This is a preventative measure. I’m just completely thrown out of the loop here. It’s on the ballot because OTHER states have those kinds of taxes, and Arizonans don’t want to be taxed in that way.

Same thing with Proposition 101. It will make it illegal for someone to tell you you can’t get a particular medical procedure done if you’re willing to pay for it. Also, no law shall be passed that would punish you for using a private health insurance, or limiting your health insurance choices. This effectively bans a one-payer health care system, as that would limit your choices to only one plan. This isn’t a law that would establish such a system, nor is it a law that repeals such a system…it’s a law that would prevent such a system.

These propositions put me in a tailspin; coming from California, it’s hard for me to believe that the general election would be used to limit government powers, not expand them. This state sounds like it’s a better fit for me than California.

Of course I’ll vote YES on these!

Dear Senator Biden

September 21st, 2008 by alftansr

From http://kofc.org/un/cmf/resources/SK_20080919.pdf

Dear Senator Biden:

I write to you today as a fellow Catholic layman, on a subject that has become a major topic of concern in this year’s presidential campaign.

The bishops who have taken public issue with your remarks on the Church’s historical position on abortion are far from alone. Senator Obama stressed your Catholic identity repeatedly when he introduced you as his running mate, and so your statements carry considerable weight, whether they are correct or not. You now have a unique responsibility when you make public statements about Catholic teaching.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, you appealed to the 13th Century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to cast doubt on the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.

There are several problems with this.

First, Aquinas obviously had only a medieval understanding of biology, and thus could only speculate about how an unborn child develops in the womb. I doubt that there is any other area of public policy where you would appeal to a 13th Century knowledge of biology as the basis for modern law.

Second, Aquinas’ theological view is in any case entirely consistent with the long history of Catholic Church teaching in this area, holding that abortion is a grave sin to be avoided at any time during pregnancy.

This teaching dates all the way back to the Didache, written in the second century. It is found in the writings of Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas, and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which described abortion as “an unspeakable crime” and held that the right to life must be protected from the “moment of conception.” This consistent teaching was restated most recently last month in the response of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to remarks by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Statements that suggest that our Church has anything less than a consistent teaching on abortion are not merely incorrect; they may lead Catholic women facing crisis pregnancies to misunderstand the moral gravity of an abortion decision.

Neither should a discussion about a medieval understanding of the first few days or weeks of life be allowed to draw attention away from the remaining portion of an unborn child’s life. In those months, even ancient and medieval doctors agreed that a child is developing in the womb.

And as you are well aware, Roe v. Wade allows for abortion at any point during a pregnancy. While you voted for the ban on partial birth abortions, your unconditional support for Roe is a de facto endorsement of permitting all other late term abortions, and thus calls into question your appeal to Aquinas.

I recognize that you struggle with your conscience on the issue, and have said that you accept the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception - as a matter of faith. But modern medical science leaves no doubt about the fact that each person’s life begins at conception. It is not a matter of personal religious belief, but of science.

Finally, your unwillingness to bring your Catholic moral views into the public policy arena on this issue alone is troubling.

There were several remarkable ironies in your first appearance as Senator Obama’s running mate on the steps of the old state capitol in Springfield, Illinois.

His selection as the first black American to be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States owes an incalculable debt to two movements that were led by people whose religious convictions motivated them to confront the moral evils of their day - the abolitionist movement of the 19th Century, and the civil rights movement of the 20th Century.

Your rally in Springfield took place just a mile or so from the tomb of Abraham Lincoln, who in April 1859 wrote these words in a letter to Henry Pierce:

“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”

Lincoln fought slavery in the name of “a just God” without embarrassment or apology. He confronted an America in which black Americans were not considered “persons” under the law, and were thus not entitled to fundamental Constitutional rights. Today, children of all races who are fully viable and only minutes from being born are also denied recognition as “persons” because of the Roe v. Wade regime that you so strongly support. Lincoln’s reasoning regarding slavery applies with equal force to children who are minutes, hours or days away from birth.

The American founders began our great national quest for liberty by declaring that we are all “created equal.” It took nearly a century to transform that bold statement into the letter of the law, and another century still to make it a reality. The founders believed that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that first among these is “life.”

You have a choice: you can listen to your conscience and work to secure the rights of the unborn to share in the fruits of our hard-won liberty, or you can choose to turn your back on them.

On behalf of the 1.28 million members of the Knights of Columbus and their families in the United States, I appeal to you, as a Catholic who acknowledges that life begins at conception, to resolve to protect this unalienable right. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues personally with you in greater detail during the weeks between now and November 4.

Respectfully,

Carl A. Anderson

Supreme Knight