Aye!

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Warren, Warren? Warren!

Let's find out, among all candidates, who are the least compromised (and the most) about the issue(s) that are most important - our issues.  And let's stop concentrating only on the presidency, lest a whole bunch of scoundrels slip in other doors and hamstring even a well-intentioned president!  Besides, what happens to anyone's plans and detailed analysis of present candidates if someone like Mr. Bloomberg decides to step in?

Let's verify and publicize who the ones are who are beholden lock, stock and barrell to the money-producing, political-power brokering, celebrity-creating, culture-destroying abortion industry.  Oh, yes, and is Bloomberg so beholden??

Let's establish the terms of debate about what are eroding the decent moral conditions within which our youth should be developing their personhood.

Is there no connection between having the baby killed, whose living would be a "bother" to you and shooting up a public school or university because of all the subjective "bother" some other guy feels from human beings there?  It seems to me "feelings of bother" and killing human beings to eradicate them (or just "make your statement") are becoming infectious.

What more is the American public entitled to than an understanding from candidates for any and every office in the country just what their convictions are relative to the rights to dignity of all human beings (our neighbors) starting with the one in the womb?

And, oh yes, a mother of one of those innocent, unborn human beings, feeling indescribably intense pressure from a boy"friend" (!) to get rid of that "bother", "or else...!";  That intensely pressured lady is our neighbor, too.  And where is she to find relief except through us who care and who vote to install our "leaders"?

Somewhere, I heard we are COMMANDED (as part of GOD'S GREAT COMMANDMENT) to "love our neighbor as ourselves", subject ultimately  to God's unerring justice.  

Would that not place upon each of us in this democracy called The United States, a moral obligation to exercise our personally-exclusive, uniquely-powerful suffrage, dilligently every election day (and vocally, in between elections) in favor of the just treatment of neighbors needing our political support: those neighbors currently suffering the politically-imposed injustice called "legal abortion"? 

This must begin with support of personally-defenseless, innocent human beings in the womb and of their mothers subject to harrassment by selfish males and private organizations currently exercising inordinate political power against justice for these neighbors.

Did I misunderstand the GREAT COMMANDMENT?  Is it, rather, merely an option (not a DIVINE COMMAND) extended by God to each of us to be performed or not performed as each sees fit, personally, in response to personal pleasure or preferences that each individual conjures up from time to time?

Warren, thanks for your noticing.  Remember, I love you, too. 

Peace        Jakes

Warren,

When one "picks his shots" he chooses among many variables, many opportunities, many chances of success or failure.  If I had my druthers, I'd like "love of neighbor" to be applied first and foremost among members of families, beginning with the first two "neighbors"  within all families: the married couple (starting before they're married).  Of course, that's being worked on perceptively right now (thanks to John Paul The Great) in the Theology of The Body initiative.

Murder on the streets surely is a target one might choose to be of first priority, as it clearly lacks the virtue of love of neighbor.  Adultery surely blossoms from absense of a conviction of the respect of another, which, of course, is an absense of love of neighbor, just using the other for my purposes. 

One could go on and on but, regarding abortion, there we find the lack of love to be of such a nature, at such fatal consequences, of such frequency and magnitude that it can be calculated and described by the sobering quantification of the lives of 3,000+ innocent human beings sacrificed day-after-day, 365 days each year!  Putting a crimp there would harvest many, many lives right away and lay a wide foundation for the understanding of love, of caring, of helping, of obeying God.

And abortion's ravages are all facilitated through the manipulation of politics by an aggressive minority of Americans.  Consider: 50% of all eligible voters refrain to vote each election day. So, just about all major issues are decided by politicians beholden to a bit over 25% of the eligible electorate.  Well-organized Culture of Death proponents use barrells of money to eek out political support of their agendas; and many who help elect abortion-supporting politicians base their vote on issues other than (in spite of) the politician's abortion stand.

This reality seems to me to be so spectacularly distinct from all other phenoma, so strikingly huge in magnitude and therefore so fundamentally envisionable and understandable by virtually anyone who would deal with it, as to offer the likliest bridge possible inside the protective envelope, the moat, the pickett fence, the wall, the distractor, the caccoon, the busyness, the other obligations, the don't bother me right now, or any other protective shield maintained by many to spare themselves personal discomfiture, personal feelings of need to "do something" should they become aware of realities they'd rather not know of, or, at least, not bother with right now.

I think that the bridging spoken about above can penetrate sufficient consciences currently shielded from the stark reality of the abortion holocaust, such as to pose the issue in some variation of the following: "Eternity IS a long time; am I wise to continue to chance ignoring God's Great Commandment to love my neighbor as myself by not stirring myself to go to the polls and pull the lever for life?  Maybe I ought to think about this and, perhaps, discuss it with others, like so-and-so.  Also, I notice that our clergy are keeping away from the purely political aspects of abortion but are discussing and explaining laitys' obligations to defend lives of innocent, helpless unborn human beings.  The language they use is so much firmer than a lot of the double-talk, ambiguous, contradictory language used generally to support and sell the concepts of 'right to choose .......'.  Can I afford to have my eternity hinge on doubletalk?" 

Remember, Warren: ---- well, you know.

Peace,         Jakes

PTR,

Thank you for this insight. Enough said.

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

GK,

Hillary - no way! She has a 200 % NARAL rating - 100 hudred for her and 100 hudred for her husband!

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

I like McCain and wish he was younger; I think because of his views and great exeprience, that he would make an excellent vice president.  Because he is 70 years old, I think the office of president might be too much for him.

While I consider many things in voting for a candidate, because I hold pro-life issues to be paramount, in the general election, I will vote for whomever we Reublcians nominate.

From Archbishop Chaput

10 points for Catholic citizens to remember http://www.catholicexchange.com/en/node/69045

points 8 and 9

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience support a "pro-choice" candidate? The answer is: I can't and I won't. But I do know some serious Catholics - people whom I admire - who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don't keep quiet about it; they don't give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support "pro-choice" candidates if they support them despite - not because of - their "pro-choice" views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

David T - I was not clear enough; please do not misunderstand me.  I did not say Romney was my all-time "favorito".  In fact in my view he is a bit too strident regarding how we should handle all the illegal Mexicans we have running around these days.  In that regard, I like Huckabee better, and in fact I agreed with McCain on his immigration reform legislation and admire him for that effort, among other things.  I just think that, of the Republicans running in the primary, Romney stands the best chance of winning in the general election this November.

Frankly, regardless of what I think of Bush (I voted for him both times and do not dislike him) it seems there is a big (and real) Bush-fatigue factor this time around, and that will not help the Republicans.

For the office of the presidency, I usually do not seriously consider those who were not governors or mayors, or a boss in some large venture.  That is to say I think it best for a presidential candidate to have some form of executive experience.  The fact of the matter is that because he cannot hide behind other legislators or committees, or other senatorial tricks and gamesmanship, a governor or mayor has his feet held to the fire more so than a senator, and is therefore held more accountable than any senator.

I am not inflexible however, and this little rule of mine is not written in stone, but basically unless the senator or congressman running is somehow extraordinary (e.g., a pro-life Democrat, or the only pro-life person in the race), I usually would not consider them a reasonable presidential candidate.  That narrows things down quickly and in the case of the Democrats this year, considerably:

Republicans without executive experience:

McCain, Paul, Keyes, Thompson

Republicans with executive experience:

Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani

Democrats without executive experience:

Clinton, Obama, Biden, Edwards

Democrats with executive experience:

Richardson

Now, I think Biden and Richardson have already bowed out, and so nobody on the Democrat side has executive experience.

As for the Republicans, my little criteria leaves only Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee.  I rule out Giuliani first because he is pro-choice, and also because his personal life is simply too chaotic.  And so that leaves me with Huckabee and Romney.  I like Huckabee and would certainly vote for him in the general election (in the end, I will always vote for the pro-life candidate).  However this is the time for each party to select the candidate they think can win in the general election.  That is to say, they are trying to select someone from their ranks who while carrying forward the notions of their party, would also be able or likely to garner enough votes from people in the opposite party in order to win the general election.  As such, while Huckabee is a very good man, I worry he might not play well outside the South.  Because since 1992, we have had one Southerner or another in the white house (Clinton, then Bush), and because I am not from the South, I think a non-Southerner would play better nationwide. 

That leaves me with Romney, who is not without his own issues, of which Mormonism comes directly to mind.  Romney's Mormon faith is not an issue for me or for most Catholics, but it might be for some Protestants.  In any case, because he does not hail from the South and has no noticable accent, in my opinion he will fare better in the general election that Huckabee would. 

None of this means I do not value those without that experience.  This rule is just one of the tools I use, along other notions and biases I carry to determine by own preference in the primary.  Indeed, I think non-executive types make great vice presidential candidates or, as is my opinon of Alan Keyes, that he would be invaluable in any cabinet, or in an executive advisory role of some sort.

Just my dos centavos

So...you're not going to vote?