Presidential Impeccability

As you may or may not know, I expend a lot of effort into determining who to vote for. I don't believe in party politics, but in examining the positions and policies of individual candidates, and choose the one according to the principles of my faith and conscience. On the odd chance that you care what Mike thinks I will share my views about voting in general, and in the 2020 presidential election, in particular.

But the focus of this post is not to do all of that, but to speak to a particular issue - can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump given that he is "X" (substitute your own value for X - liar, adulterer, racist, etc.). I have seen a lot of arguments along the lines of
A: "Catholics can't vote for Biden because he is pro-abortion."
B: "Well, then Catholics can't vote for Trump because 'X'. therefore Catholics are free to vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils."

First off, there are more than two candidates. If you can't vote for Biden, that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump, and vice versa. There are several other candidates, such as Brian Carroll, or Tom Hoefling, who embrace most of Catholic social teaching without being Joe Biden or Donald Trump. If you honestly can't vote in good conscience for either major party candidate, rather than violate your principles, vote for one of them, or write in another candidate. "But that is throwing away my vote" - nonsense. It is staying true to your values. If being on the "winning" side in a political contest is more important than your conscience and moral values, you need to rethink your priorities.

Back to the issue at hand. There are "non-negotiables" from a Catholic perspective. These are explained here, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is a summary. From the EWTN site, the distinction is as follows:

Non-negotiable issues involving essential moral goods (e.g. life, liberty) are the most important. Essential goods directly oppose intrinsic evils which may never morally be chosen.

Negotiable issues, on the other hand, are not matters of essential goodness or evilness. Rather, they involve determining the best means, or policies, to achieve good ends.

If a candidate (in any race, not just POTUS) promotes any non-negotiable issues, a Catholic may not support that candidate unless there are no candidates who do not support non-negotiables, in which case he must vote for the candidate who he believes will do the least harm.

In the 2016 election, there were five non-negotiable issues identified specifically.

• Abortion
• Human Cloning
• Euthanasia (assisted suicide)
• Stem Cell Research
• Homosexual "Marriage"

In the 2020 elections, this is the list.

1. The dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
2. The dignity of marriage and family, upon which the good of every society and the human race itself depends.
3. The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. 

What happened? Did some issues become "negotiable"? Did new ones become "non-negotiable?" Part of it depends on what's at stake in an election. In 2016 parental rights to educate children wasn't an issue at all -  nobody was attacking that right. Now that right is threatened. The first four issues on the list did not go away, but have been combined into one item in this year's guidance.

Note that this list does not say anything about the impeccability (moral character) of the candidate. While moral character is important, we are not trying to canonize the person, we are hiring them to do a job, and the important thing is whether or not they will do a good job, not whether or not they have a good personal life. Unless Jesus or Mary are eon the ballot (and boy, I wish they were) we are always going to be voting for someone who is a sinner.

Now let's look at where Donald Trump stands on those issues, and others.

On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, Donald Trump has been a steadfast champion. He has spoken numerous times about the dignity of human life. He is the first president to promote and attend the March for Life. He has done everything in his power to defund Planned Parenthood. He has surrounded himself with pro-life people, like Marjorie Danenenfelser, Alveda King, Abby Johnson, and others. He has appointed Supreme Court justices and federal judges who interpret the Constitution as it was originally written (and hence can work towards the overturn of Roe v Wade). Likewise his judicial choices oppose euthanasia. He has criticized and removed funding for fetal tissue research.

I have heard objections that Planned Parenthood's funding is at its highest level this year. That is not due to Donald Trump, but house Democrats, who have increased funding to make up for Trump's funding cuts. You can't blame a man for something someone else did.

I've also heard objections that Trump is not pro-life because he does "X" (supports the death penalty, puts kids in cages, wants to arrest immigrants, didn't fund social welfare program "Y", etc.). Some of those criticisms are justified, others are specious, but the one thing they have in common are that they are not non-negotiables. We cannot conflate not letting someone into your country with dismembering a baby. One is a prudential decision which may or may not be best for the common good, the other is murder, plain and simple.

On the dignity of marriage and family, Donald Trump has, for the most part, been a force for good. Again, his judicial nominations have been pro-family, and pro-religious freedom. According to an NBC News report Trump said, referring to same sex marriage:

“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” Trump said in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday night. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done. These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m fine with that.”

These comments appear to contradict statements Trump made during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace in January, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices who would repeal same-sex marriage.

Does that mean Trump supports a non-negotiable? I think it is a matter of personal interpretation. I see it as something similar to what Bishop Robert Barron said in an interview on the Rubin Report.

Rubin questioned the bishop on his “personal feelings” about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized homosexual “marriage”: “I assume you felt it was a wrong decision by the court?”

“I do,” replied Barron. “But I don’t think I want to press it further. I think where we are right now in the States, I’ll apply the Aquinas principle. I think it would probably cause much more problems and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.”

In other words, not wanting to press the issue at this time is a far cry from endorsing it. Given the second part of NBC's coverage, and other remarks the president has made, it seems clear that he does not support same sex marriage, nor does he believe Obergefell was correct, but it is not a hill to die on right now. Making this a campaign issue would likely cause more problems than it would help.

Still, if you personally feel those two words "I'm fine" undo his support of marriage and family in other areas and indicate true support for same sex marriage, then yes, you would have to not vote for Trump as a good Catholic.

On the right for parents to educate their children Trump is a strong ally. He has championed conscience rights, religious freedom, school choice and homeschooling without government interference. His choice for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, is very much in favor of private and religious schools and homeschooling. The president's judicial nominees have been in favor of parental rights and religious rights.

All in all, I think you have to say that barring two words, made in a 60 Minutes interview, there is nothing you can point to about the president supporting non-negoatiable issues. Even those two words "I'm fine" do not, in my opinion, indicate "support" or "endorsement" of a non-negotiable. In fact, as the president's detractors point out, his actions have contradicted those two words.

I also see Catholics decrying other "non-negotiable" issues that the president supposedly supports. Here are a few:

The president supports the death penalty. This is true, but the death penalty is not a non-negotiable. According to Pope Francis' latest statements on the issue the death penalty is no longer needed. That does not change the church's long standing teaching that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. In the case of the death penalty, the human being isn't innocent, and is being killed in a manner of self defense. We shouldn't kill if we have a better means of defense, which is Pope Francis' point, but that doesn't change the teaching, just the circumstances.

The president is pro-gay because he appointed Richard Grenell acting director of the Office of National Intelligence, which made him the first openly gay Cabinet member. In addition, president Trump has worked to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 countries where it is illegal, and worked on a plan to eradicate HIV/AIDS. The catechism says, paragraph 2358:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. 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. 

There is no reason not to hire a homosexual person for a job if their sexuality does not impact their ability to perform it, and if they are qualified. In fact, it would be unjust not to. Decriminalizing homosexuality sounds bad, until you realize that most of the criminal penalties being discussed are death. I don't think anybody believes that is just. And eradicating HIV/AIDS is a work of mercy. The disease is not restricted to homosexuals, and even if it were, they deserve to have their health needs met. Although homosexual acts are to be avoided, people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion.

Again, if you honestly feel that this constitutes promoting homosexuality, then by all means vote your conscience. To me this, like his words "I'm fine" do not rise to the level of support.

So can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump in good conscience? I believe one can. There are a few items (his reluctance to challenge Obergefell at this time, and his call for other countries to stop locking up and executing homosexuals) that one could interpret in such a way as to eliminate him as a potential candidate, but I don't believe either of these constitutes support of these issues, merely prudential decisions to get support to address larger issues, like the abortion of almost one million innocent children.

Read More

Impeach!

OK, nobody asked for my opinion so here it is.

As I understand it, president Trump is being impeached on 2 articles. First, that he abused power, seconds that he "obstructed congress."

On the first charge, the claim is tampering with the 2020 election:

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. 

Let's take a closer look at that. The transcript of the call was made public because the Democrats demanded it.I see nothing in the transcript where he asks that the investigation be made public, only that the investigation continue. So, isn't it the Democrats who made it public, and are therefore culpable of the transgression? Or maybe I am misconstruing something... but let's grant that the claims are correct for a second.

It is not a crime for the president to ask a foreign government to investigate crimes; President Trump's "crime" according to the article of impeachment, is that the investigation would embarrass a candidate in the 2020 election... but isn't that exactly what the Democrats are doing? Making a very public investigation into a candidate in the 202 election to benefit their candidate, harm the election prospects of their political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to their advantage? I mean if investigating a political rival in a way which can humiliate them and influence the next election makes one unfit for office, then every Democrat who called for Trump's investigation and impeachment is equally unfit for office using the same criteria.

 

The second article of impeachment claims that president Trump "obstructed congress" - what does that mean, exactly? According to the Congressional Research Service, obstruction of congress consists of:

obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law).

On the face of it, it looks bad. President Trump is accused of ignoring lawful congressional subpoenas. But is that what happened? No. President Trump claimed that the subpoenas were not valid, and that he would comply if a court ordered him to. Rather than appealing to a judicial process, congress ignored his request and accused him of ignoring their request.

 

IANAL, but I know that there are limits to what one can subpoena, and particularly when a branch of government is involved. According to this article, SCOTUS is ruling (likely in Trump's favor) on a very similar issue of subpoenas.

 

Ultimately this is a matter for the impeachment court to decide, which is the senate. The fact that the Democrats won't release the charges to the senate so that the president can be tried is a clear indication that the impeachment proceedings are intended to humiliate the president, rather than to actually redress a crime. Of course, that brings me back to the first article of impeachment.

It is unlikely that 2/3 of the senate will vote to remove the president, considering that not even all the Democrats in the house voted for impeachment. I don't know if any of these things are objectively impeachable, but if they are, there's clear evidence that the house Democrats are as guilty as the president, if not more so.

On the other hand, the Democrats have "won" this round. The government is in shambles and the country is divided under the Trump administration due to their actions. And maybe the Republicans won something too. I don't personally like president Trump, but this circus is so far out of the bounds of decency it makes me almost want to vote for him, just to not appear to support this kind of contempt for Constitutional procedings.

Read More

Christians must oppose Trump

I see this all over the place, articles like The Moral Confusion of Trump Christians. The gist is that Christians who support President Trump are hypocrites, morally confused, immoral, anti-biblical, you-name-it. There are so many ways to refute this, frankly, I am confused (about which way to show that this is ridiculous).

First off, let's look at the claims.

• Trump is an immoral man, who has had affairs, divorces, etc.
• Trump is a boorish person.
• Trump is racist
• Trump is divisive
• Trump is anti-Christian values

Therefore anyone who votes for him or thinks he is doing a good job is not a "real" Christian, but is betraying Christ.

Is Trump what they claim he is?

First off, does he even exhibit these attributes for which Christians should allegedly avoid him?

• Has he had affairs, divorces, etc.? Yes (well, the "proof" of affairs is circumstantial).
• Is he boorish? Yes.
• Is he racist? No. When asked to back claims of this people point to his immigration policy (enforce existing law) which is not racist, or that his economic policies favor one group over another (a dubious claim, given how minorities are thriving under his economic policies) or that he supports white supremacists (a lie).
• Is he divisive? In the sense that liberals have distanced themselves from the rest of the country because they don't like him. But in terms of fostering division between people, no.
• Is he anti-Christian values? Emphatically no. He has reinstated the Mexico City policy, reversed religious discriminatory practices and championed the pro-life cause.

Is he worse than the alternatives, in immorality?

Secondly, if we are to avoid supporting Trump, who should Christians support instead? Certainly there are third party alternatives, and I have posted quite a bit about them in the past. But the majority of people in the US fall into the "I must vote for a party that has a chance to win' camp. And that means if you don't vote Republican, you vote Democrat.

Who are the Democratic candidates who will be running against Trump, and do they align more with Christian values? Let's look at a few.

• Kamala Harris claimed that Catholics should not be allowed to serve in government due to their bigotry. She believes in abortion up to birth, and with Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Kolbuchar voted for legalized infanticide.
• Elizabeth Warren, aside from her vote above, lied about being a Native American.
• Bernie Sanders, aside from his vote above, argues for socialism, directly against Christian teaching.
• Cory Booker, aside from his vote above, defends his groping of a woman in college against her will.
• Joe Biden, aside from his notable use of the F-word, is now the subject of multiple, well documented accounts of sexual harassment.

100% of these people are pro-abortion and in favor of Obamacare, with its restrictions on religious freedom (remember the Little Sister of the Poor). They may or may not have as much of a "shady past" as Trump but consider that, unlike Trump, their anti-Christian views are current, not in the past, and they defend those views as "right thinking" whereas Trump has never defending sleeping with a porn star (for instance) as the "right" thing to do.

Does it Matter?

What all these claimants seem to miss is that, unless Jesus (or Mary) is on the ballot, everyone we vote for will be a sinner. But we are not voting to say we approve of every aspect of their lives, we are voting to hire them for a job. When you hire a roofer, or a landscaper you don't choose them by whether they sinned in the past, but by whether or not they will do a good job for you. To the extent that you consider their moral character at all you might look at their current beliefs. We have a religion based on repentance and forgiveness. The criteria for a Christian to support a candidate is not "is the person saintly" but "will their actions in office advance or detract from Christian morality."

In that sense we can see Trump has clearly been on the plus side, especially as compared to any of the above candidates. As noted above, he restored the Mexico City policy, has rerouted money from Planned Parenthood to actual women's healthcare groups, has reversed or eliminated may religious discrimination policies, such as Obama's "weaponization" of the IRS against religious conservatives, the HHS mandate and others. He has welcomed Christians into the White House for prayer and council. He has spoken at and supported two Marches for Life. He prays publicly.

As Christians, we can disagree on Trump's immigration or economic policies (although I really don't see how, but that's another topic), but in general, even taking that into account, there is much more good there, from a Christian perspective, than not.

Conclusion

Christians should not oppose Trump. In fact, Christians should support President Trump. God help us if any of his opponents are elected in 2020. People claiming Christians who support Trump are morally confused are, well, morally confused themselves.

P.S.

To those Christians who oppose him on the grounds of wanting abortion to be legal, as a Christian I must warn you to consider your opinion on the matter. The Bible clearly forbids murder, and abortion, whether you like it or not, falls into that category, from a Christian perspective. If you think this is some new thing Catholics invented, consider the Didache, which was written by first century Christians (possible predating some of the New Testament) [emphasis mine].

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

For those who want to fall back on "science", claiming that the ancients believed a fetus was a child but we know better, you need to rethink your source of scientific knowledge. If anything, we know now unequivocally that from the moment of conception (fertilization) the child is human (DNA tests prove this) is alive (exhibits all the activities necessary for life) and is an independent organism.

The only differences between that 1 day old blastocyst and that two year old are location and dependency. And nobody can argue that a mother has no obligation to care for a child dependent on her (well, people do argue that, but it's a ridiculous argument, and doesn't change the fact of the humanity of the child).

I make these statements not to win an argument but to save your souls. You will be judged by what you did not do for the least of these, thy brethren. Consider that thoughtfully.

Read More

Trumped up BSA News

Picture from FOX

I'm been seeing a lot of these in my news feed:

Trump subjects Boy Scouts to a political rant that demeans the presidency
Trump critics liken Boy Scouts event to a Hitler Youth rally
There’s No Mistaking Trump for a Boy Scout
Trump is unteachable. His Boy Scouts speech proved it
Trump’s Boy Scouts speech broke with 80 years of presidential tradition
Trump's Boy Scout Jamboree speech calls for health care action, 'more loyalty' in DC
From ‘fake media’ to Clinton, Trump brings political attacks to the Scout Jamboree

and my favorite
The Origin of Trump’s Weird Sex Yacht Anecdote in His Boy Scout Speech

Of course the usual people are making the usual comments... how "Trump needs to go" - how "Trump is destroying the world," how he should be prosecuted, and how the Boy Scouts need to denounce him. Apparently this speech was unacceptable in all ways.

But did any of them take the time to watch the speech, or did they just look at the 10 second sound bites fed to them by the media that they trust and believe? Ironic how many stories blast Trump for saying "fake media" in his speech, in a story which is, itself, "fake media" in its portrayal of his speech.

So, out of curiosity I went and watched the whole speech. It is 38 minutes long, but since youtube will play it back at 2x speed I was able to get through it in 20 minutes. Let me say this:

• It was a "Trump" speech (meaning there was an element of narcissism in it).
• There was no "sex yacht" - well, there was a yacht, but if there were sex it wasn't mentioned. The story was about losing your focus and commitment in life, and it was actually a good point to make to scouts who will be starting their careers soon.
• In brief, the subjects covered were
• Boy Scouts, and scouting in general is great
• America is great
• Those who serve others (military, police, firefighters, etc.) are great
• The scout oath and law are an important part of being a good American
• The Trump administration has the support of the American people
• The Trump administration has accomplished great things
• The Trump administration has undone a lot of bad things done by the previous administration
• It is important to find something you are passionate about and do it well
• Service to others is an important part of life

Other than injecting too much about his administration, there's nothing wrong with the speech - but then again Trump is unable to say "hello" without injecting something about his accomplishments, so that's not "news". Yes, I can take blurbs from the speech and come up with something bad, but the sheer variety of things complained about in various news stories supports the fact that the overall speech was not rally about any of those points.

A couple of points need to be addressed.

How does this speech compare to other BSA Jamboree speeches?

I went back and looked at the previous Jamboree speeches on youtube.

At the 2013 Jamboree President Obama did not show up at all, apparently after initially indicating he would come, since the BSA has made up special patches to commemorate his appearance. Instead, Mike Rowe gave a speech. In it he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his organization, which offers scholarships and financial aid to those learning a trade, and which promotes "dirty" jobs growth. Now, I don't mean to compare Mike Rowe with President Trump in terms of the quality of essence of the speech. Mike is an excellent speaker, and eagle scout, and an apparently selfless and egoless guy. The opposite of President Trump in many ways. But my point is the outline of the points hit by the two speeches is similar, except for the fact that the organization that President Trump is promoting is his administration.

For the 2010 BSA Centennial Jamboree President Obama recorded a 90 second video, which was played at the Jamboree. It was a very "generic" speech which said basically "congrats."

At the 2005 Jamboree, President Bush spoke. In his speech he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his administration's initiative to promote volunteerism.

So in terms of overall points, President Trump's speech did not vary from the "standard." In terms of delivery, neither Mike Rowe nor President Bush used a teleprompter. President Bush had note he referred to, and Mike Rowe spoke without any notes. President Trump used a teleprompter, as I presume President Obama did for his brief 2010 video.


Personally I didn't like President Trump's speech as much as the others, perhaps because I find his style narcissistic and triumphal. However, that is his style, not a substantive issue. I did think all three speakers were sincere in their admiration for scouting and their comments.

Boy Scouts an Politics

I've heard a number of people complain that Trump politicized the Boy Scouts, and that Boy Scouts are forbidden from being political or partisan. This is baloney. First off, here is the BSA official policy on Boy Scouts' participation at political events.

POLICY ON SCOUT PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL EVENTS

Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where television viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.

Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply that the BSA favors one candidate over another. Strict observance of our long-standing policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.

Note, however, that this was not a political event - it was a Jamboree, a scouting event. There was no "candidate" running for an office. The rules above are clearly a nod to the Johnson Amendment (which as you know I think is an unconstitutional infringement on first amendment rights). But regardless, there is no ban on scout participating in politics. In fact, part of the scout oath is to do one's duty to one's country, which explicitly includes participating in the American political system.

If President Trump appeared to have the support of the scouts present it's because he did, and that is to be expected, because the values that he expresses are in consistent with the scout principles of patriotism, good citizenship, religious belief and moral standards. Likewise, Mike Rowe and President Bush had the support of scouts in their respective speeches.

In short, President Trump was President Trump. The Boy Scouts were Boy Scouts. The media was outraged by everything President Trump says or does, and says he is evil. All things that go without saying. About the only thing newsworthy about the whole event was that the president spoke at a Jamboree, which hasn't happened in 12 years.

Read More

Opposite Donalds

Another story from the Opposite Files. For newcomers, the opposite files are my record of double standards and hypocrisy. You can click on the link to see the whole list - and more are being added all the time.

Encourages supporters to be violent.

Won't be held responsible for what supporters do.

Now denies he ever said it.

Picture of Trump's wife posted by supporters

without his knowledge or approval

Trump holds Cruz responsible for what supporters do,

attacks Cruz's wife in retaliation.

Read More

Why not?

I saw this editorial cartoon by Steve Benson on Jill Stanek's site the other day. According to Jill, Benson is the one obsessing about banning abortion, not Santorum.

I think the whole thing is absurd, along with this "Santorum is coming for your birth control" idiocy. The president does not have the authority to ban abortion or confiscate condoms. The real goal is to scare people into voting for a president who has looser morals than they do because, hey, then he can't possibly criticize anyone else.

I say absurd, because what we desperately need in politics are people with morals. When we elect people who are OK with killing children, why are we surprised that they can't be trusted with money either?

But the good thing about this cartoon is it got me thinking. Is banning abortion really the way to fix the economy? To end war? To balance the budget? Last year, the federal government paid close to $350,000,000 directly to the abortion industry. What if we got rid of that? I know it's a drop in the bucket, but what would happen economically if abortion were banned?

As I pointed out in my post "Healthcare economics and abortion" the children aborted since Roe v. Wade would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. And that's net gain, not gross.

So, if you want to make fun of the idea that banning abortion is the solution to all our problems go ahead. But you've chosen some pretty shaky ground to stand on.

Read More

George Washington

From today's American Minute blog:

On OCTOBER 3, 1789, from the U.S. Capitol in New York City, President George Washington issued the first Proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God, as just one week earlier the first session of the U.S. Congress successfully approved the First Ten Amendments limiting the power of the Federal Government. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In his Proclamation, President Washington stated: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God....we may...unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations..." Washington continued: "and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our...duties properly...to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws...and to bless them with...peace and concord...and the increase of science...and...to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."

 Amen!

Read More

One More Into the Breach

Since everyone is analyzing the president's speech at ND, I figured I might as well. I have an advantage over other bloggers of having access to a symbolic logic analyzer.

It was developed over the past years, using an algorithm developed by Muller Holk of the Division of Logic of the Encyclopedia Foundation on Terminus. It is capable of digesting a speech and producing a summary of its actual symbolic content. I started with the original transcript of the speech given here, and after a few milliseconds of computing time I got the following (cross references to conflicting material are marked with [] by the parser):

I am smarter than you.

The most important issues are the economy, the ecology and harmony. Every other issue should take a back burner to these.

The following things are evil: prejudice, self-interest, materialism, taking advantage of the weak, power and privilege in the face of injustice, violence.

The following things are good: stem cell research and "choice" [so we can keep our prejudice against the weak, our self-interest in our bodies and convenience, our material goods (instead of spending them on children), and keep our power and privilege of life in the face of injustice, and our violence against the weak]

I once wrote what I believed on my web site and someone said they wouldn't vote for me because of my bigotry, so I held on to my bigotry, but changed my words to hide it so I would get his vote, because I am cleverer than you, and everyone knows getting votes is more important than being honest about intentions.

Let us work together to reduce the number of abortions, unintended pregnancies and increase adoptions, support mothers, support conscience, and make sure policies are grounded in ethics. Those are things we can do.

[For my part in this I will make abortions more available and less expensive, suppress religious efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies support adoptions and help mothers, remove conscience clauses and make sure we remove funding from ethical stem cell research and put those funds to work on ethically problematic research.]

The abortion debate is irreconcilable, so keep talking - but only talking - while I make policies Because talking but not doing is fair [to me].

When I was young I helped people in Chicago. I looked up the name of the archbishop so you would applaud because I am smarter than you.

I am an African American. 55 years ago people did a good thing to help stop discrimination against the disenfranchised who were denied basic human rights, and Notre Dame had a big part in it. Now look at Notre Dame.

Remember, faith is doubt, love is hate, war is peace.

Remember that each of us is endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God [except the unborn].

Read More