No Practicing Catholic Will be Fooled by Hillary Clinton’s Claim She “Has Spent Her Life Fighting for Children”1


One of the current television ads promoting Hillary Clinton for President has her saying that she will make sure every child “has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.”

But, can she really expect us to believe that when she also proclaimed on January, 10, 2016:

“First of all, I will always defend Planned Parenthood, and I will say consistently and proudly, Planned Parenthood should be funded, supported, and appreciated, not undermined, misrepresented, and demonized. I believe we need to protect access to safe and legal abortion, not just in principle, but in practice.”2

We can start by recognizing the absurdity of her claim that abortions can be “safe” when 50% of the patients end up dead.  To Hillary:  How can a child realize his/ her potential if killed before birth?  Another thing, you mention is “God-given potential.”  At least you seem to understand the origins of life.  However, how can you rationalize the taking of an innocent life when only the creator of life, God, has the authority to do so?

The right to life is paramount.  “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation… 3

Hillary Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, is far from ideal in proposals and character.  His ungentlemanly comments about women must be rejected outright.  (Although, it is surprising that the culture which accepts contraception and its resulting dehumanizing of women should be so holier-than-thou on this subject.  See footnote #4).  Fortunately, despite his overly assertive personality, he has enough humility to defend human life in addition to freedom of religion and other key positions which Clinton abandons.

Without this foundational attitude toward life, all other policy proposals are mere attempts to win votes and cannot be taken seriously.  Therefore, despite what data may come out of tomorrow’s election, we can be sure that few who support Hillary Clinton are practicing Catholics.


1 – From

2 – “3 Things You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton’s Record on Abortion,” by Frank Camp,

3 – Excerpt from paragraph 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.



“Right to Health Care” — But No Right to Life?

“In my view healthcare is a right of all people, not a privilege, and I will fight for that.” —  Bernie Sanders1

“Health care is a basic right.”  —  Hillary Clinton2


A person must be alive in order to need health care.  If the right to life is not protected, then health care becomes irrelevant.  Without the defense of life, a “right to health care” is mere grandstanding to impress the unthinking.  It’s as absurd as saying everyone has a right to car insurance, but your vehicle can be taken from you arbitrarily.

Bernie and Hillary, the right to life is THE basic right.



2 – Hillary Clinton speaking to on 1/27/2016,,_2016/Healthcare

If the Constitution, the Right to Life and Freedom of Religion are Important to You, Then…

…a Republican majority must be elected in the Senate on November 4th.

There is no other alternative. And this comes from someone with no party affiliation.

With a change in the Senate’s majority, we will have both houses of Congress under the watchful eye of those who respect our Constitution. It will be easier to thwart the President from using his infamous pen to do everything from appointing NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) members illegally to unconstitutionally changing laws without the consent of Congress.1,2

The Democratic Party, the current Senate majority, acts as if human pregnancy is a disease which is implied by Obamacare. As such, it rationalizes that human life may be arbitrarily ended at any time before birth under the guise of “reproductive rights” instead of the murder which is actually taking place. This party prides itself on being the champion of the oppressed, yet it is willing to deny the basic freedom of the right to life from which all other freedoms and social programs arise!3

Our nation has also witnessed new lows regarding the basic right of religious freedom during the Obama Administration. At one time, the wisdom of George Washington’s exhortation in his farewell address was self-evident in that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Now, many are oblivious to the dangerous shift to “freedom of worship,” prominent in the President’s and in Hillary Clinton’s speeches.4 In other words, you can keep your religion, just confine it to the church buildings. Now that’s doubly worrisome.

Obamacare provides an example of this rationale. The act which requires employer-sponsored insurance to cover contraceptives (and abortifacients) has “religious exemptions.” Thus, some are allowed to skip this part – so long as they sign an agreement permitting a third party to implement within their organizations what they find morally objectionable. It’s a classic “we won’t force you to drive your car for the bank robbery, just say you agree to have someone else drive your car for this.” Sure, that’s OK.

We can continue to allow Sen. Harry Reid, or possibly another dutiful disciple of the President in the next Congress, to sit on a pile of legislation passed with bipartisan support and designed to put renewed vigor into our chronically sluggish economy, or we can put a Republican majority in the Senate and dare President Obama to veto what the United States needs.5,6

Thirty-four states will decide thirty-six Senate seats this coming Tuesday. They will choose either “The Pen and a Phone” or the Constitution and the philosophy which formed it.

1 – “Obama Plays Cat and Mouse with Congress and His NLRB Appointments,, 1/28/2013

2 – “25 Violations of Law By President Obama and His Administration,”

3 – “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation (emphasis is in the original:
‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin…’
‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…’” – from paragraph 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994 (with imbedded quotations from Donum vitae which were included in the paragraph)

4 – “Why ‘Freedom of Worship’ is Not Enough,” by Ashley E. Samelson,, 2/22/2010

5 – “Jenkins: 352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action,” 7/29/2014,

6 – “Harry Reid’s Obstructionism,” by Andrew Stiles, 1/14/2014,

Governor Cuomo is Following his Dad’s Beliefs Instead of the Church’s Wisdom

New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo is undoubtedly making his father, former New York governor Mario, proud by continuing in his dad’s very un-Catholic rationalizations on major social issues.1,2 

Caustic  Cuomo

In The Capitol Pressroom radio show last Friday, Andrew Cuomo said that Conservative Republicans with their right-wing views have no place in New York because “that’s not what New Yorkers are.”  The New York Post reported that he answered his own “Who are they ?” question with “Right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”  He tried to appear conciliatory by adding that moderate Republicans, like those in his state’s senate have a place in their state.3

Cuomo’s officials said that the governor’s remarks were not aimed at the general population, but only against “extremist” candidates.  It’s “fine” if Republicans oppose abortion, gun control and gay marriage.  It’s just that 70% of New Yorkers believe otherwise.3

Severe  Exaggeration  of  Those  Protecting  Gun  Rights

First, let’s start with the most secular issue at hand — gun control.  Cuomo tried to suggest that defenders of the Second Amendment are those who believe civilians should be able to own assault weapons as they would a basketball or tennis racket.  He won’t acknowledge the logical reluctance of people to bet their lives on a police force which cannot possibly respond instantaneously to every mortal threat from a would-be criminal.  In addition, those who refuse to surrender the inalienable right to protect themselves do not also believe that just because the Army has assault weapons, tanks and missiles, then the citizens should be able to own them, too.

Popularity  Never  Justifies  a  Change  in the  Morality  of  Intrinsic  Evils

Even if it were true that 70% of New Yorkers believe it’s OK to kill an unborn human, that doesn’t authorize anyone to put White-Out on Moses’ tablets.  A mutation in public opinion doesn’t change the fact that humans in pre-Commandment days knew that murder is wrong.  Contrary to another un-Catholic’s  (Nancy Pelosi) claim a few years ago, the Church is certain when human life begins.4,5  No one in the public eye can promote laws which allow any form of murder and still call himself a Catholic.

Not  Condoning  Disordered  Behavior  Does  not  Make  an  Individual  “Anti-Gay”

There are some conservatives who would deny members of the LGBT community fairness in housing, jobs, etc. on the basis of what they think is right.  They often proclaim themselves to be Christian, but if that is so, then they are not being true to genuine Christianity. For example, an excerpt from Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states this regarding those with homosexual tendencies:  “…They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…”6

Nevertheless, Natural Law and the earliest teachings of Christianity going back to its Jewish roots in the Old Testament also prohibit anyone from changing the definition of marriage which states that it is a union between one man and one woman.  That some Christians misused Scripture to deny racial equality, including interracial marriage, does not automatically disqualify all uses of Scripture with regard to any other social issue.

Marriage originated from religious institutions.  Civil law became involved in order to address the physical aspects of marriage including break-ups (tax status, alimony, child support and separation of property).  It can deal with the effects of marriage, but it cannot make up its own definition of what constitutes a marriage.

Message  to  Governor  Andrew  Cuomo

Political Conservatives, including many independents, normally do not advocate assault weapons for civilians as part of their defense of the Second Amendment.  Lumping everyone together only damages your credibility.

The use of “anti-gay” is much more inflammatory than fact.  Most adherents of Natural Law and those truly respectful of Judeo-Christian values do not hate those of LGBT persuasion.  They merely acknowledge that marriage is not a secular invention which can be modified by public opinion.

Finally, you should be commended for your using “right-to-life” instead of the implied negative “anti-abortion.”  However, if you really considered the complete form of “right-to-life”, you would realize that it also includes the abolishment of capital punishment —  something you support.  Perhaps you could better appreciate these “conservative issues” if you would listen to the wisdom of the Church you claim to belong to instead of the rationalizations of many other un-Catholics in the Democratic Party.


1 – Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo changed his position on abortion.  Advocates for abortion said it was due to his recognition that “the political significance of abortion had grown dramatically in the wake of a recent United States Supreme Court decision allowing states to limit access to abortion.”  He further employed a Pilate-like washing of his hands with, “’I feel absurd,’ he said. ‘Like I don’t know why the judgment is mine. Or an all-male court, except for one woman, or a mostly male Congress.’” from “Cuomo Takes Abortion Stance Favoring Women’s Right to Choose,” by Elizabeth Kolbert,, 9/11/1989

2 – Mario Cuomo tried to discard our entire human history and the meaning of marriage which elevates our male/female relationships above those of animals.  In the interview, Cuomo said, “What does “marriage” mean? Well, to a lot of people, it means only heterosexuals joining in a permanent union. Fine. And if your religion, like Catholicism, says that it has to involve just heterosexuals and can’t involve people of the same sex, great! Then they won’t be married in the Catholic Church. And if your religion does allow it — whatever your religion is — fine!” from an “Interview with Mario Cuomo” by Religion & Ethics Newsweekly correspondent Lucky Severson on 4/23/2004 and posted 4/30/2004 on

3 – from  “Cuomo: Pro-Lifers ‘Have No Place’ in New York,” by Sandy Fitzgerald,, 1/18/2014

4 – Pelosi in an August 24, 2008 interview: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” Posted on  There is more to a discussion of what St. Augustine actually wrote, but that is not the purpose of this article.

5 — In addition, every pope in Andrew Cuomo’s lifetime has reaffirmed the belief that life begins at conception.  Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae item #13, referred to Pope John XXIII’s statement, “Human life is sacred, from its very inception reveals the creating hand of God.”
In item #14, Paul VI wrote, “In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” This paragraph carried a footnote relating it to the writings of Pope Pius XI in 1930, Pius XII in 1944 and 1951 and John XXIII in 1963.

6 – The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994.

Texas Case of Comatose Pregnant Woman Reminds Us That TWO Lives are at Stake

Marlise Munoz, 33, was put on life support after suffering what is believed to be a pulmonary embolism in late November.  She and her husband, Erick, had discussed end-of-life decisions many times before.   He is convinced that, although they had not signed do-not-resuscitate orders, she would not want to be on life support.1

What is preventing the doctors from removing life supports systems is the part of a Texas law which prohibits it in case of pregnancy.  While the ABC News article phrased it as “Texas state law puts the right of a fetus over the wishes of its mother,” that is a clever misstatement.  What the Texas law does is recognize the equal right-to-life of both humans involved.

The ABC article also reported, “Art L. Caplan, director of the medical ethics division at NYU’s Langone Medical Center, said that 18 weeks, the fetus is not viable, but could be kept alive and delivered by cesarean at 24 to 28 weeks.”

Fox News ran this story today including some statements from Bobby Schindler.2  He said it best when he commented that he couldn’t imagine a mother wanting her child to die…  That also raises a lot of questions beyond this situation.


1 – from “Husband Wants Pregnant Wife Off Life Support,” Susan Donaldson James, 12/23/2013,

2 – He is the brother of the late Terry Schiavo, who “suffered brain damage after a heart attack, was at the center of a years-long right-to-die struggle that ended in 2005 when her husband removed her feeding tube over objections from her parents.” From, 1/2/2014

“The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?”*

Certainly, this quote refers to those 3,500 unborn children2 whose lives are legally snuffed out each day because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision forty years ago which denied the right to life!

…….. Uh, no, this was Justice Anthony Kennedy referring to the 40,000 of California’s children whose guardians are same-sex “married” couples.

The children’s inexperience requires parental permission for even the simplest of activities off school campus.  Nevertheless, their implied expert testimony is admissible (in absentia) for this case dealing with an attempt to overturn an aspect of Natural Law, which is not under the state’s jurisdiction by the way.

For some reason, the voice of their dying, younger peers doesn’t count in the defense of their innocent lives.

* – Justice Kennedy’s quote partially summarizing a concern of those who are opposing California’s Proposition 8 (approved by a majority of voters and which stated that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.)  He was speaking to Charles J. Cooper, who represents supporters of Proposition 8.  [“Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt on Gay Marriage Ban,” by Mike Sacks and Ryan J. Reilly,, 3/26/2013]
2 – I cannot take credit for this observation of a close friend, only for the courage to post commentary on a timeless truth currently out-of-fashion with a majority of the media and its followers.

Why All of the Fuss About “Sequestration” and Losing Some Border Patrol and TSA Agents?

Like her boss in the White House, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has been expressing theatrical concern over the possible effects which “Sequestration” will have should Congress and the President not agree on a budget by the end of the week.

True, there will be across the board “cuts” (or more accurately, decreases in federal spending increases as Fox News and the WordPress blog “Quiner’s Diner” have been reminding us).  But the worry about it damaging our national interests and security is particularly humorous in view of what has been happening for some time.  Losing some border patrol and TSA agents is miniscule compared to the internal destruction going on right now with the approval of 50.7% of the voters last November 6.  (It might actually be beneficial to the border patrollers – being displaced means they’ll stand less of a chance of being killed with our guns in the hands of foreign drug criminals.)

For the 50.7% (including, sadly, many of my fellow “Catholics”), let me remind them of the modern version of the Fall of the Roman Empire unfolding in front of us (the order of this list does not necessarily indicate priority):

1)  $16 trillion in debt, 48% owned by foreign governments and individuals.As of last June, China owned ¼ of our foreign owned debt.Two huge problems here.  Climbing debt slowly strangles our government’s ability to deal with anything except servicing the debt, not to mention weakening the dollar.  And, do we really want an ideological opposite like China to have this level of power over us?  (Well, maybe not such an ideological opposite as we’ll see in the following items.)

2)  Disregard for the dignity of human life.  (This should be first, as all other rights are in danger when this one is ignored.)  “Choice” and “reproductive rights” are the morbid euphemisms resulting from a terribly flawed Supreme Court decision forty years ago.  Oh well, Obama and his followers don’t need to worry.  Those 55 million murdered can never vote against them.  Incidentally, an ardent Obama supporter, George Soros, contributed to the development of the abortifacient “RU-486”and its use.3,4

3)   Major contributors to the President’s political party who are opposed to our nation’s survival.  Not true?  Well, back to George Soros again, one of the masterminds pushing for Democratic election victories since 2003.  Soros commented that “Some global system of political decision-making” in which “the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions” when “collective interests” are at stake.5  Also, “[Soros] argued that a vision of ‘open society idealism’ must supersede traditional state sovereignty if globalization is to benefit all.”6

4)  Doing away with the basic unit of civilized society, the family, by attacking the sanctity of marriage.  OK, so you don’t believe in the Ten Commandments, then I hope there is some acknowledgement of Natural Law.  Men and women are different physically for a reason.  (surprise!)  Same gender sexual activity must be condemned because it is intrinsically disordered.  We are morally bound to afford those afflicted the same care and consideration as we do for anyone else experiencing disordered tendencies such as gambling addiction, alcoholism, heterosexual addiction, pedophilia, greed for power and money, etc.7
Marriage was not invented by the Church or the state.  Neither of these institutions has the authority to redefine it.  Legitimizing same sex “marriage” has ripple effects which disrupt the structure of the family.

5)  Making it so that citizens are dependent on Big Brother for everything.  Food stamp recipients increased by about 47% or 15 million during Obama’s first term.

Laws using distorted definitions of “discrimination” and “equality” are threatening the major areas of non-governmental social programs and agencies.  Religious organizations, many of which are Catholic, are finding that they are running afoul of creative laws which declare them to be discriminatory.  Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot accept same-sex couples as appropriate guardians because of Natural Law and core beliefs.  The very existence of religious schools, hospitals and social organizations is threatened because they will not deny deeply held faith beliefs in order to be compliant with government directives such as the HHS mandate.

6)  Essentially suspend freedom of religion, an inalienable right, by limiting its practice to church buildings.  Not only are there dangers such as the HHS mandate, but we also have, “Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.”8

7)   A federal government so insecure that it touts the crimes of a few, criminally insane as justification to work toward disarming the citizenry.  You and I are such a threat to their vast teams of undercover, armed agents and military might?  This warrants therapy for us, but they’d better hurry before all Catholic Social Services are out of business!

8)   Increasing invasions of privacy under the guise of “protecting” us.  Cameras everywhere.  Drones at Obama’s disposal.  New cars in 2014 required to have “little black boxes” to record vehicle operations data similar to that of 600 mph jets.  Chip implants, just for “high security workers” now, but eventually for “medical records” followed by “etc.”

And we’re supposed to lose sleep because Janet Napolitano’s budget will be affected if Congress doesn’t give in to an executive-order happy President? 

– Kimberly Amadeo,, 1/8/2013
2 – Ibid., 9/5/2012
3 – Rachel Zimmerman. “Choice Allies: Awaiting Green Light, Abortion-Pill Venture Keeps to the Shadows,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/5/2000, reference posted in
4 – “Contributed $1 Million To Planned Parenthood For “Outreach, Education and Training” Relating To RU-486,” Marc Kaufman, ”Abortion Pill Deliveries Begin Soon,” The Washington Post, 11/16/2000, also in
5 — Matthew Rees, “Saving Capitalism From Soros,” The Ottawa Citizen, 12/9/1998, in
6 — Carlin Romano, “George Soros Offers A Plan To Help Poor Via Globalization,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/2002, also in
7 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  They do not choose their homosexual condition: for most of them it is a trial [blog author’s note: “trial” as in a “tribulation,” not trial as an experiment].  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God’s Will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  [blog author’s note:  just as any man and woman not married to each other are called]  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested [note: meaning not self-serving] friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (paragraphs 2358 and 2359 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)
8 — Xavier Lerma, pravda,ru web site, 11/19/2012, posted in the article “Fiscal Cliff: Obama Poised to Win Either Way, U.S. Loses Either Way,” on, 12/29/2012