Some more thinking….

I have boycotted companies known to donate money or in other ways support Planned Parenthood and I know many of you also do that same thing. Yet, for some, it is perfectly okay to vote for the candidate who had (and still seems to have) no problems sending millions of our tax payer dollars to them each year.

 

Filed under: General Stuff

Torture and the Catholic Church

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

I have been giving this subject a lot of thought lately. I have actually been thinking about it for a few years, but was a coming and going thought and with the rigors of daily life, I never sat down to read up on the teachings of the Church on the subject. I my heart I knew it was wrong, but so many people were in some ways “pro” torture, so I thought I was missing something. Turns out, the Church comes down on torture much harder than I realized.

I was reading up on the subject during my “quiet time” the other day and came across a blog and this post.

Positions of The Republican candidates on torture and related issues

It has been quite some time since I’ve posted anything on this blog; life has simply been busy, but I hope to remedy things as the 2012 election season heats up.

For today, I’d simply like to post the position of the various Republican candidates on the issue of torture/enhanced interrogation and related issues. I’m drawing my summaries from various sources, so I’ll include a selection of links at the bottom of the post.

The candidates are listed in alphabetical order.

Gingrich: Has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is something America shouldn’t do. Believes that Guantanamo should remain open until the terrorists disappear.

Huntsman: Opposes waterboarding; calls Guantanamo an “imperfect solution” but criticizes Obama for breaking his promise to close it.

Paul: Opposes torture and waterboarding as illegal and immoral; opposes Patriot Act; thinks Guantanamo should be closed.

Perry: Says he opposes torture but approves of enhanced interrogation which includes “any technique” used to save American lives. Supports keeping Guantanamo open.

Romney: Favors enhanced interrogation techniques and will not say whether waterboarding qualifies as such a technique. Has said Guantanamo could be doubled in size if needed.

Santorum: Voted to renew Patriot Act. Would continue using Guantanamo for terror suspects. Says that waterboarding is effective. Said John McCain didn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works, that the object is to break a man so he will become cooperative.

 

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI and our former Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II both addressed torture. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said,

“In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

He was repeating what Blessed John Paul II wrote, in 2004,

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

 

 

 

Filed under: Catholic, General Stuff, Social Commentary

Just Thinking….

I am pretty disgusted with so called Pro Life groups supporting a candidate who think nothing wrong with funding Title X, yet ignore the man who has introduced more pro-life legislation than any other person in Congress.

Honestly, why aren’t more people upset about this? Are we perfectly okay to sit back and let our tax dollars go to fund something we are completely opposed to, while voting for the men who say “yes” to funding it? Doesn’t anyone else find this insulting? Doesn’t it defeat what we have done?

Filed under: Catholic

A Link or two…(updated)

I saw this earlier today, but wanted to wait until I had a free moment to blog. Well my waiting paid off because someone else did my work for me 😉

For those who are only going to read this part: Santorum has no problem using your tax payer dollars to fund birth control. He was also on Greta and implied that the birth control pill was not an abortafaciet.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/17/santorum-defends-moral-versus-political-stance-contraception-while-caught-crossfire-super

If you are a Santorum supporter, you owe it to yourself to watch/listen to these.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/mr-catholic.html

So Rick Santorum does an interview with Hannity where he proudly declares that he votes to spend your dough on contraceptives and abortifacients (jump to the 9:05 mark).  (Note: the link has the audio clip)

Only he doesn’t say “abortifacients” because he tries to snow the audience that the Pill is not an abortifacient, only the “morning after” pill is. But, in fact, the Pill *is* an abortifacient. So Santorum has effectively voted to support abortion.

Meanwhile, that kerrrayyyzy Ron Paul strongly opposes federal funding for birth control. Why? Because it’s not the job of the Feds to provide birth control.

So we have a non-Catholic candidate who opposes compelling people to pay for what other people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom, and we have a Catholic candidate who is “personally opposed” like Cuomo but who chooses to compel people (including Catholics) to pay for what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom, even when it includes abortifacients. He makes a show of opposing the morning after pill. But that’s not the only abortifacient.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Happily, Santorum is in the groove on the things that *really* matter to the GOP leadership–pre-emptive war, preserving the precious legacy of Bush era torture, and the sacred pre-eminence of corporate profits over the needs of human beings. So his private fetish about being semi-prolife is fine, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the real agenda. And since he’s already shown himself to be a good soldier when the party demanded he prostitute himself for Specter, we can be sure he won’t make a thing about abortion really. So he’ll be useful for suckering the prolifers back on to the reservation again.

I’m leaning back toward just voting third party and refusing to support either of these corrupt machines. Either way, Obama doesn’t get my vote, and I will not feel like I need a shower if I don’t vote GOP.

Filed under: General Stuff

Anniversary, Birthdays, and German Chocolate Cake

Last night we celebrated Joshua’s birthday. He isn’t big on his birthday but the kids would just die if we didn’t have cake 😉 Joshua likes German Chocolate cake so I found a recipe for and was very excited to try it out.

Here is Karol, waiting for the cake to be cut into. Pardon the drippy icing, I am still learning how to do cakes w/humidity (in February).

The cake after being cut into, it held up nicely!

Side view, doesn’t it look great!

On Thursdays, we go to 6pm Mass at our Parish. This means that we do not get back home until around 7 or so (last night was 745 b/c we stopped by Lowes). What we generally do is feed the kids before Mass then do bedtime routine when we get home and dinner after they are in bed. Last night, we did cake first, then made dinner for ourselves.

The other night Joshua talked about having a chicken sandwich, something we never have at home, mainly because I don’t buy boneless skinless chicken breasts. I do, however buy chicken thighs. I decided to try my hand at a chicken po-boy. I used a bread recipe I got from my friend Stefanie and kinda put the rest together from things I have seen on cooking shows.

Here is Joshua’s sandwich (well one of three or four that he ate!). He really enjoyed it. So much so that he kept complimenting me on them.

 (Oh, and the anniversary part? Nine years ago yesterday, I met Joshua.)

Filed under: Food, General Stuff

{pretty, happy, funny, real}

~ Capturing the context of everyday life ~

round button chicken

Today I am linking up with Like Mother, Like Daughter for {pretty, happy, funny, real}

{pretty}

IMG_20120216_101440.jpg

My beautiful children, a true blessing from God.

IMG_20120216_101418.jpg

{happy}

Nine years ago today, I met my husband, Joshua. It’s hard to believe we’ve known each other for that long!

{funny}

IMG_20120216_101206.jpg

This is not the day we met, but this is what he was wearing when we met. (a picture of a picture, sorry!)

(Long story made short: We met while I was discerning religious life and he was a religious brother. We became friends and that was it, until the first time we saw each other after he had discerned that he was not called to be a priest.  We knew that day that we would be married and were married a year and two months later, a year and a half from the day we met.)

{real}

 IMG_20120216_110705.jpg

The real beauty that came from the friendship that began nine years ago!
IMG_20120213_191138.jpg
Benedict watching Holy Baby – he covered himself up.
IMG_20120210_105620.jpg
They are really good friends.
Filed under: General Stuff

Fried Dough

Today I had a nice meal planned out for the Feast of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, then a headache struck mid-afternoon. It was pretty bad and I planned on going to bed when Joshua got home, even though it was his feast day. I felt bad about leaving him with the dinner rush, so I sucked it up and got dinner started, then moved on to thinking about dessert. I ended up making this recipe.

I forgot to get pictures while making the dough, but it was pretty easy to put together. Here the dough is, divided into 8 balls.

I rolled it out to about 5 1/2 inches and about 1/4 inch thick. I usually just eyeball when rolling out dough, but tonight I felt like being “technical”.

I put the oil in one of my cast iron pans and turned on the heat . I knew the oil was ready when I splashed a drop of water in the pan and it spattered. (do not do that with kids around). Cooked on one side for 50 seconds

And the other for 45.

Place on to a paper towel lined baking sheet.

Top with cinnamon and sugar.

Devour (aren’t they cute?)

Enjoy on your own late, with a nice glass of milk.

 

Filed under: Food

If I told you…(a guest post)

This is a guest post, submitted by Heath C, a liberty loving, pro-life man from Central Georgia. He also write over at I am the Grandchild. (For years we have heard, “we are writing checks that our grandchildren are going to have to pay.” Well I AM THE GRANDCHILD. That time is no longer generations away it’s now.)

If I told you that a person:

1. Voted to use tax payer money to fund Planned Parenthood (number one provider of abortions in America)
2. Voted to pass legislation used to criminalize and indicted Pro-Life peaceful protesters
3. Endorsed Pro-Abortion candidates over Pro-Life Candidates
4. Has voted in the past to federally fund contraception (birth control) 1

AND you consider yourself pro-life would you vote for that person?

Would you call that person a conservative or liberal?

Anyone want to take a guess at who this describes?

It’s probably not who you are thinking it is. People are probably quick to think of a “liberal” candidate/politician. Someone who has openly said they support a woman’s right to choose. Romney or Obama is a likely first thought.

Well you’d be wrong!

You would never consider it to be the person who casts himself as the “social” conservative, the most “prolife” candidate, or the defender of religious freedom. The person who is described above is Rick Santorum!

He has based his whole conservative image on social issues. Why? Well he knows that his record on fiscal issues, limited government, lower taxes, and privacy issues are liberal NOT conservative 2

So he has hung his hat on courting the Evangelicals and Catholic religious conservatives. He has pandered and catered his message to massage their ears! And they (I should say we because I am an Evangelical) have bought it!

However when you examine his record here is what you’ll find:

  • He voted for funding planned parenthood – His defense is that it was included in a much larger spending bill. Well herein is part of the problem. He is for spending in general. If he didn’t mind spending taxpayer money he would have voted no on that principle alone…but to go further if he was SO adamently prolife there is NO WAY he could vote for any spending bill that included funding Planned Parenthood. He will also try to say the money from the government doesn’t go toward abortions. Understand the term fungible and how it works. 3 Basically, if you only have $100 and you need gas but you also want groceries but you couldn’t afford both you are forced to make an either or decision (I like food I’d get food and walk). Now say I gave you $100 and tell you to get some food with my money. You can now afford things that you couldn’t before. You may not ever spend the money I gave you on gas but you are now able to afford gas. The same is the case with government funding of Planned Parenthood. Let alone the fact that the government is giving ANY support to ANY private organization at all…ESPECIALLY one that is providing services that are against the conscience of a large percentage of US citizens.
  • The legislation is The Abortion Clinic Access Bill 4 and Rick Santorum voted Yay. If he’s against abortion so much why in the world is he voting for access to the clinics? Furthermore, many prolife groups warned that this bill would be abused and end up getting peaceful demonstrators arrested. Well it has.5 If you are prolife do you want people to have access to clinics or have them closed down? I am confused.
  • Does the name Arlen Specter ring a bell? It should. He was a liberal prochoice Republican from the same state as Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania. There was a more social and fiscal conservative choice (Pat Toomey) that was in the Republican primary in 2004 against Specter. Santorum, however, endorsed the liberal prochoice candidate. WHAT? Why would a prolife candidate endorse a prochoice candidate if prolife issues are so important to him? Specter won in a close election less than 1%. Here’s more fuel to the fire. Specter later switched to the Democratic Party and cast a crucial vote in the Senate to pass Obamacare. Oh and by the way Toomey may sound like a familiar name to you now because he beat Specter and the democrats in 2010 mid-term elections.6 Imagine if Santorum had endorsed Toomey could that have affected less than 1% to feel comfortable with Toomey over Specter? Now ask yourself, would Toomey have voted for the 1st Amendment trampling (forcing Religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees) and the abortion funding Obamacare? The answer is NO! Santorum essentially helped Obama get through his healthcare legislation by supporting Specter.
  • He previously voted to continue funding for Title X…which funded contraception. Title X is the only existing federal grant program that is completely devoted to providing comprehensive family planning and other related preventive health services to individuals.7

I could keep writing on all the other anti-gun legislation, Endowment of the Arts etc but you get the picture by now.

Here’s my point if he wasn’t so spend happy he never would have indirectly, THOUGH knowingly, voted for Planned Parenthood or Title X. If he was really wanting Abortion clinics closed not easier access; he wouldn’t vote for legislation that leads to the prosecution of peaceful protesters. AND if he was the conservative prolife politician he casts himself has he wouldn’t vote for these OR endorsed Specter out of conscience. Santorum has no problem spending money even when the bills contain pro-death appropriations.

The truth is he is a big government spending Republican who is neither consistent on Fiscal conservatism nor Social conservatism. He isn’t against over spending just Democrats overspending. If and when it’s Republican deficits and debt ceiling increases he doesn’t mind spending. 6 out of 7 times while in Congress he voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling.8

We have a candidate who has NEVER voted for raising taxes, unbalanced budgets, or spending increases. Who has also NEVER voted for funding Planned Parenthood, Title X, did not vote for the Access to Abortion Clinics bill OR endorsed Pro-Choice candidates.

In this election we don’t have to make the often vexing decision between social conservative vs. fiscal conservative. We have a candidate that embodies BOTH.

RON PAUL!

RON PAUL has introduced a bill in the Congress that would effectively end Roe vs. Wade with a simple majority of votes and a presidential signature. The Sanctity of Life Act would return jurisdiction to the states and overturn Roe vs. Wade. This bill would save millions of lives immediately while we work on a Constitutional amendment and/or getting judges in place to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The changes at the Federal level are still years away…and difficult (that’s part of the problem of big centralized government. It is difficult to change once something is enacted.) Why not do stop gap measures in the meantime until the latter is accomplished. Most states would vote to make abortions illegal and immediately end them. WE DEFINITELY wouldn’t have all the states funding abortions!9

Ron Paul is the conservative option to Rick Santorum…on both SOCIAL and FISCAL issues!

1 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsidize-abortion-planned-parenthood

 

Filed under: General Stuff