Save America...hit the streets!

Senator Jim DeMint is callng for peaceful demonstrations to prevent the demise of America as we know it.

"I would think it's time to start thinking about peaceful demonstrations," he told us last week.

Seriously?

"Seriously.

"The power of the people is there. Freedom is in the people's hands right now, and it's about to slip through."

Sounds like a brillant idea. Sign me up, Senator!

Read the entire article here

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/02/22/edi_512294.shtml

So what do we do now?

Like many of you I was disappointed after hearing Tuesday night's election results. That being said, I respect the office of the presidency, and honor the democratic process, so I won't rant and rave and protest like the election like the other side did in 00' and 04'. However, I won't throw myself prostrate in blind obedience behind Mr. Obama either, like I have been told to do, even by some in the conservative media. Doing so is not patriotic, it's stupid. The concerns we had before the election remain after the election, and while we can give him a chance, we must watch him closely. When he talks about how he doesn't want red or blue states, I get the feeling that he really wants to quiet dissenting voices and just have blue states. Healthy, intellegent debate (respectful debate, not the backstabbing and hate we see in politics) is important for a democratic government, and those of us with a conservative viewpoint need to more vocal than ever. Especially, since President-elect Obama promised that he would support the Freedom of Choice Act--which would eliminate all restrictions on abortion (late-term, partial-birth, parental notification) forever. Such legislation, which clearly rejects the will of the people, must be stopped. We must not stop being politically active, we must raise our voice louder and clearer than ever before! These are critical times.

Obama's "Civilian Military"...Does this sound familiar people?

Pray

Required Reading

Why Obama's Socialism Matters

The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

Read the full article here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html

It's not about Ayers, it's about Obama's worldview...

"The government that gives everything to its people is the government that can take everything from its people." --Abraham Lincoln

Many charges have been made in response to the Obama/Ayers issue-- the most prominent being that conservatives have convicted Obama of being "guilty by association" regarding his relationship with Ayers.

I believe some are missing the point.

The crux of the issue is not the exact circumstances by which Obama associated with Ayers, because, as a Chicago politician, it is plausible that he may have had to work with him from time to time. From my online research, it appears that (the former domestic terrorist), Mr. Ayers, like or not, is a highly respected figure in Chicago politics and liberal academia (which leads us to question the state of Chicago politics and liberal academia, more than it does Mr. Ayers and Obama). The question is, rather, "Who is Mr. Obama and what exactly is his economic, social, and political worldview?" He has promised a world full of peace, hope, love, and unity if elected. We will all work, sing, laugh, and make merry together, like something out of a bad Smurf cartoon. (La, la, La, la, la La, hope, change, hope, change, change....) His words are honey to most Americans who struggle to get by, who long for peace, but live in a world of strife and discontent. Mr. Obama makes practical promises which appeal to most Americans....help with college tuition, pre-school, heath care, more efficiency in government, but he fails to provide us with the philosophy behind his promises. In our sound bite, immediate gratification culture, we sadly have become a reactive, rather than a principled, reflective, people. We take without questioning where it is coming from. My generation (X) and those trail after me the (the Ys) have not been effectively educated in the basic rights and principles that have been put in place to guide American civic life. And if we don't know what we have, how will we know when it is about to be taken from us?

Barack Obama has a long list of affiliations with people that hold views that are in sharp contrast to American core values--whether it be Mr. Ayers, the flag stomping, self-described communist, or his long term Pastor Jeramiah Wright, the black militant extremist, among many others. No longer a fringe group, these radicals with their anti-American views have gained quite a following in recent years, and have been granted positions of respect and power in the realm of politics and academia. Instead of promising us the moon and stars, I would like to hear how Mr. Obama specifically critiques the views of his political affiliations, and why he is only denouncing them now, after being in their camp for so long.

Go, Sarah, Go!

In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, JohnMcCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak forthemselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child? When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I've learned already.Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world , if we give them that chance. There are the world's standards of perfection and then there are Gods, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake. As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think westand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we dont feel scared anymore. We feel blessed. Its hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isnt who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully. I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldnt have to be quote "punished with a baby." He said that right here in Johnstown punished with a baby and its about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. Its not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passedlegislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed thatbill. He voted against it in committee, and voted present on the Senate floor. In that legislature, present is how you vote whenyoure against something, but dont want to be held to account.Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as too close to infanticide. Barack Obama thinks its a constitutional right, but he is wrong.Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldnt even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants often babies with special needs are simply left to die. In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They reliving, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them aspre-viable. This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obamavoted against it. Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that hedhave voted yes on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. Theres just one little problem with that story: the language of both the stateand federal bills was identical. In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sidedwith those who wont even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the oldpolitics.In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed inthe votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, its easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you wont notice how radical his ideas and recordare until its too late. But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that willcontinue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, its above his pay grade. For a candidate who talks so often about hope, he offers no hopeat all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in needand the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponents own party, at its best, onces tood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey. He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote forMcCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.

Dorothy Day: Is she a saint?

Dorothy Day, pacifist activist and founder of the Catholic Worker movement is one of the most interesting religious, social, and political figures of our time. Dorothy Day is so intriguing because she just can't be put in "box." Conservatives admire her because of her post-abortion conversion, her criticisms of the sexual revolution, her fidelity to the Church, and her love of the sacraments. Liberals claim her as their own because of her love for the poor, her disdain for capitalism, her extreme pacifism, and her fight for social injustice. So exactly who has claim to Dorothy? Was she a traditional, faithful Catholic---or was she a revolutionary, determined to change the Church and our government from within?

God sent Dorothy Day into this world at the turn of the century. She was born in 1897, into a lower-middle class family. She grew into a bright, inquisitive teen and young adult who embodied passionate idealism. Like many of us during our young adult years, she wanted to change the world. She became involved in the pursuit of women's rights, free love, and communism. She had a series of lovers, became pregnant by one, and had an illegal abortion at the insistence of her boyfriend, who abandoned her immediately thereafter. Emotionally wounded and hesitant to love again, she eventually entered in a common law marriage with a committed atheist, and later had a child by him. Thrilled that God had given her a second chance, she developed an interest in Catholicism and longed to have her baby baptized. The father of her baby, angered by Dorothy's newly inspired faith, wanted nothing to do with religion. Dorothy was faced with a choice--God or the man she loved? She choose God, had her daughter baptized and formally entered the Church herself. A contemporary of Mother Theresa, she later opened a homes for the poor, welcoming all, even those who were unlovable.

Dorothy is controversial because of her extreme anti-war stance; completely abandoning the concept of the just-war theory, for what she thought was a Gospel-inspired embrace of complete pacifism. As we contemplate the threat of war in our own day, I believe the question that lies at the heart of this discussion is the issue of individual pacifism vs. collective pacifism. Jesus’ “turn the other cheek,” and “those who die by the sword live by the sword ” statements leave us to wonder what exactly Jesus meant and to what extent they are to be taken literally.

Based on my own experiences and reflections, I believe in our daily lives, we are called to be agents of peace….with those who offend us, misjudge us, criticize us, annoy us, and abandon us. We are called to rebel against our pride and our natural inclination to defend ourselves and instead pursue the path of sacrifice and mortification.

However, on a collective/governmental level, there are times when we must fight for the common good and the protection of our people. War should always be a last resort, but sometimes one must confront evil in order to secure the true peace which Jesus talks about. Authentic advocates of peace must not gloss over injustices or turn a blind eye to dangerous dictators.

However, that being said, if we pursue holiness on an individual level, that peace will naturally spread to our families, our workplaces, our communities, our government and our world—thus eliminating the need for war.

I admire and have a devotion to Dorothy Day for a multitude of reasons. She fully believed in the inherent dignity of every person, and saw Christ in them. Her spirituality was one of heroic sacrifice, of conversion, of a faith put into practice. She lived mercy and had the heart of Christ. She understood the meaning of love. She spoke candidly about her human struggle against the power of the flesh. However, although I believe she was well-meaned, when it came to her complete pacifist stance on war, she was wrong.

Can she still be declared a saint? Yes, for saints do not have to be “right” on everything. Saints have been wrong. Saints have made mistakes. Not everything a saint says can be quoted as Gospel. For example, St. Jerome is quoted as saying, “The only good thing about marriage is that it brings forth more virgins.” Pope John Paul II admitted in his writings towards the the end of his life he should have been more of disciplinarian. You and I, by the call of the Second Vatican Council are called to sainthood. I desire to be a saint. But have I always said and done the right thing at every moment in my life? Heck no!

If she is declared a saint, it will be because of the fervor of her love, despite her sometimes extreme political and economic views, not because of them. Dorothy Day was neither liberal or conservative--she was a frail human creature who sought to figure out the meaning and purpose of life--like all of us.

Servant of God, Dorothy Day, pray for us!

***I highly recommend the film, Entertaining Angels (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116212/ )for a intimate view of Dorothy's early life.