Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

Between the last day of Pintastic NE 2022, interviews, as much pinball as I could squeeze in before the machines were taken away, the drive home, and Mass last evening and uploading the final videos I didn’t get a post up yesterday nor did I comment on the Dobbs decision.

Now that I’m home with a night’s sleep let’s do a quick five thoughts about the Dobbs Decision.

  1. If there was ever a time to say: “Thank you Mitch we owe you one” it’s now. No Matter How much the GOP base might be angry with Mitch McConnell on other things no GOP legislator is more responsible for this result. None of this is possible without his willingness to:
    • Stop the Garland nomination in its tracks
    • Retaliate against Harry Reid for ending judicial filibusters
    • Push Judges including Trump SCOTUS picks
  2. Of course if we’re going to thank legislators we also have to thank Harry Reid who often claimed to be pro life and ironically turned out to be the single most important man in the Senate to get this going. Without out him nuking the filibuster for judicial appointment at the urging of Obama Mitch McConnell does not nuke it for SCOTUS allowing Trump to get through three justices that the left would have filibustered till the cows come home. Yes it meant that the left was able to seat Ketanji Brown “What’s a woman I’m no biologist” Jackson and perhaps other radicals like her but if that’s the price of killing Roe we’ll take it. Without his action Mitch’s prophecy never comes through, cue the video:
  1. Of course the primary person we have to thank is Donald Trump Not only did he push forward conservative Judges but when Ruth Bader Ginsberg died less that 50 days before the election he was ready to roll with Amy Comey Barrett getting her approved with only a week to spare. Can anyone think of any other GOP president who would have been willing to do so? If you had told me in 2000 that Donald Trump would do this, I would not have believed you, but the Hermit of Loreto would have. I guess Mitch’s Prophecy was not the only one that was fulfilled last Friday:

Capoverdi asked him in English if he was Thomas [Zimmer], and the two had a delightful conversation. When Trump was elected, Dr. Curran called and told him that, back in the 1980s, Tom Zimmer said he had received a “premonition” and that “a certain man would lead America back to God”—and that man would be none other than Donald J. Trump.

“The millionaire playboy from New York?” the incredulous doctor is said to have asked Zimmer.

“Yes,” the Hermit of Loreto responded, adding he was so sure Donald Trump would become a great spiritual leader of America that he wrote his name on a brick and had it placed in the reconstruction of St. Peter’s Holy Door after the Jubilee so Trump would receive blessings from the many Masses that would be said in the Vatican.

Ever wonder why the left’s hatred of Trump boarders on the demonically insane? This is why
  1. One can not stress enough how critical to this day the courage of Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch Barret and Kavanaugh in this ruling. The leak of Alito’s draft opinion was specifically used to try to intimidate them. The left openly threatened their lives (and are still doing so) with one person already facing attempted murder charges while protestors continue to harass them at home in violation of federal law. All the while Democrat leaders were either silent or encouraged such action and the Democrat AG who once was nominated to sit on the court did nothing to enforce the law. If they had caved not only would the rule of law be threatened in this country forever but it had the real possibility of turning our cold civil war into a warm one and generating an actual insurrection rather than the fantasy being advanced by the left in the house.
  2. Finally an odd thing that my family members have seen on facebook as been the incredible rage of people who loudly proclaim that they don’t want to associate themselves with anyone who is happy about this decision or posted anything to celebrate it. I actually find this amusing in the sense that my family members are all Catholics who regularly go to church and regularly receive the sacraments including confession. That there are people who are friends and associates of them who are shocked that such people who openly practice their religion actually believe what the the faith teaches seems a tad odd. In fairness if they only get their news from CNN & the MSM perhaps they figure that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and all the other public Catholics who consider faith a coat to remove if it becomes uncomfortable or inconvenient to their power the norm.

Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.

If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life.

If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him.

When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life.

Ezekiel 3:17-21

If you really want to find out who is your friend, who actually loves you and wants the best for you. Find some who is willing to tell you an uncomfortable unpopular truth for your own good and risk getting pilloried for it.

That is the love that the Archbishop of San Francisco has for Nancy Pelosi

After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion “rights” and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance.  I have accordingly sent her a Notification to this effect, which I have now made public.

Why is this important? St. Paul explains it in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians:

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Cor 11:23-29 Red indicates Christ’s words Emphasis mine

Ed Morrissey has thoughts about what this might mean:

But what about the USCCB and the Vatican? Cordileone doesn’t mention either of them in his letter, and it’s unclear whether he coordinated this decision with one, both, or neither. As prelate, Cordileone has the authority to make this decision, but Pope Francis has the authority to reassign Cordileone if he acts in a way contrary to the pontiff’s leadership, too. It will be quite interesting to see what actions Francis and the USCCB take in regard to this form of enforcement of doctrine and canon law [see update].

Equally interesting will be what happens the next time Pelosi goes for communion. Will the priests of the archdiocese comply and refuse her access to the Eucharist? They’d better or else they might find themselves in serious breach of their oath to faithfully serve their bishop, from whom their authority to act as priests originates.  Also, what happens when Pelosi goes to Mass elsewhere — especially in Washington DC? Technically, Cordileone’s writ only runs to the boundaries of the archdiocese. Will Cardinal Wilton Gregory honor that declaration?

What it actually means is this:

Archbishop Cordileone loves Nancy Pelosi so much that in an era where law enforcement looks the other way when it comes to people considered enemies of the left, to publicly warn the eighty two year old Nancy Pelosi about a grave danger to he soul in the hopes of saving it rather than seeing it condemned.

He actually believes and has the courage to act on that belief. The only question remaining is Does She?

The title of this article is an example of extreme satire and irony.  The behavior of the proponents of abortion has been as atrocious as we’ve all come to expect.  Their behavior has not sunk to the level we all witnessed during last summer, when ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter were rioting almost nightly.  There is a good chance that could happen. I believe that they are just warming up.

Abortion has become a religious sacrament to those who inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.  The slaughter of unborn children, up until the moment of birth, is a sacred right to the vast majority of modern Democrats. Because abortion is seen as a sacred right, any threat to abortion is met with religious fervor. 

Marxism is at the very core of the political left.  Individual life has very little value to a Marxist because that family of philosophies is based on collectivism.  Violence and intimidation are the tactics most often used by the political left because they operate under the mistaken belief that the ends always justify the means.

This past Sunday, which was Mother’s Day, leftists decided interrupting Catholic Masses was an acceptable tactic to protest the leaked end to Roe versus Wade.  As you can see from this article, they mistakenly believe they have the right to interrupt a church service.

After interrupting Mass, the protesters feel like they can get irate when asked to leave. “I have a right as an American!” one of the pro-baby-killing activists screams as she’s walked out of the church. And while she certainly has the right to protest, she doesn’t have the right to do so inside a church, especially as Mass is being conducted.

I understand leftists seem to have an issue understanding the difference between private and public property—the communist brain disease destroys the ability to understand such concepts early on—but the church is private property, and they don’t even have to be allowed on the grounds, let alone in the building.

This Tweet documents the startling events that took place during Mass in one Catholic Cathedral

As you can see from this Tweet by journalist Any Ngo, things turned violent in Los Angeles.

Democrat politicians, such as the mayor of Chicago, are openly calling for violence.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot encouraged violence on Monday in a tweet asserting the U.S. Supreme Court’s leaked opinion draft signaling the downfall of Roe v. Wade means the justices will come for the“LGBTQ+ community” next.

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms,” she wrote on Twitter. “We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

The conduct of the so called pro abortion activists has deteriorated to the level where they  firebombed a pregnancy center, then gloated about it in a rather ghastly manner.

‘BURN LITTLE JESUS FREAKS’: ABORTION ACTIVISTS LEAVE VILE VOICEMAILS FOR CHRISTIAN ORG THAT WAS FIREBOMBED

Roe v. Wade was not only a constitutionally dubious ruling, it was morally reprehensible, and rather barbaric.  Like most of us on the political right, I am optimistic that it will be soon overturned.  Like the vast majority of Americans, I was caught completely off guard by the leak of Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the case Dobbs v. Mississippi.

Here are the two most important paragraphs from Alito’s opinion, as quoted from this article, Leak: Supreme Court to Overrule Roe, Returns Abortion to Voters (breitbart.com).

We hold that Roe v. Wade must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall into this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown to American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

I have studied the Constitution in great detail,  all from the original source documentation, rather than through Supreme Court Precedence. Up until the 1890s original documentation, such as the debates from the drafting of the Constitution, Ratification Debates in the States, The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers were the primary tools used to interpret the Constitution,  The dramatic shift to using Supreme Court Precedence, which are just the opinions of the justices, as the only tool to interpret the Constitution did not begin until over 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

Samuel Alito, who is absolutely correct in his opinion overturning of Roe v.Wade, used a combination of Supreme Court Precedence and original documentation.  If he relied just on the original understanding of the Constitution, his opinion would have been much shorter,

Abortion is murder.  That is a truth understood by founding fathers of the United States, and those that wrote and ratified the Constitution. Murder is not a crime defined by the United States Constitution. Only a handful of crimes are defined in US Constitution. Those crimes are treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Those are the only true federal crimes, the only crimes that fall under the purview of the federal government. All other crimes are left in the hands of the States.  Murder is not mentioned in US Constitution therefore it is left up to the States to define murder and prescribe punishment for those who commit that crime.  Because abortion is murder it is an issue left in the hands of the States, not the federal government.

Abortion is not a right because no one has a right to commit murder.  Hypothetically, if there  really was a right to an abortion,  the issue would still remain in the hands of the States, if we still followed the original interpretation.  Because abortion is not listed specifically in the Bill Rights,  it would be covered by the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If abortion was a right covered by the 9th Amendment, it would still be left in the hands of the States because the Bill of Rights is a hands off for the federal government. The rights protected by the Bill of Rights are far too important for the federal government to touch them in any way, not even the Supreme Court.  Decisions involving are most important rights were left in the hands of the States exclusively.  This is documented in great detail in this lengthy discourse, which took place at the beginning of the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives. 

It was not until the 1920s that the Supreme Court declared that it had the authority to rule on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  The Supreme Court granted itself that authority in direct opposition to the plain meaning of the Constitution using what is called the Incorporation Doctrine.  I will cover the Incorporation Doctrine in great detail in a future article.

All this talk of abortion being a right covered by the 9th Amendment is mute because abortion is murder, and no one has a right to commit murder.