Just how did the silent majority, fed up with the celebrity-driven amorality of the Democract party and President Obama's agenda end up trumping HRC? How did shaming Christians for their traditional beliefs as being bigots, cause them to say one thing to the pollsters and another thing in the sanctity of the election booth?
This is just my humble opinion.
Catholics and Protestants faithful to their religious traditions and the religious freedom of this country which allowed them to bring their faith and morals to the public square were interiorly outraged at the Obama's administration to suppress religious liberity, denigrate Christians, Catholics specifically, and try to change the Church wihen it comes to her sexual morals. The religious majority were fed up with the Obama's administration at social engineering to accept abortion even in the 9th month with partial birth abortion, forcing the Church to provide birth control and abortion services through private insurance and perverting God's plan for natural marriage.
Apart from that, the fear of the silent majority that President Obama saw in HRC a continuation of his administration and the election of Trump as a repudiation of his administration proves to be true. This is as much a vote against Obama and his arrogant agenda against religion as it is against HRC.
Then with an administration hell bent on perverting marriage, promoting the use of male and female bathrooms for those who wish to be in opposition to their God given gender and all the gender ideology that surrounds this and the calling of faithful Christians bigots for their God-given Faith and Morals, we had an administration that allowed Iraq to fall and ISIS to proliferate and the Middle East to become a blood bath for Christians and other religious minorities. Gay rights was more important the the blood of innocents in the Middle East.
Jobs of course is a part of it, especially blue collar jobs lost to foreign countries. Just ask the south about what has happened to the textile industry since the 1980's and other parts of the country which have lost similar type jobs only to have the tourist and restaurant business fill in the gap.
I have questions about Donald Trump. He lies too. He is not a religious person. But he doesn't want to change the Catholic Church to make it like the Episcopal Church, impotent. He isn't going to force the Catholic Church to eat pork as the Obama administration wanted to do and as HRC would continue when it comes to reproductive ideology.
He will appoint Supreme Court justices that will not see gender ideology as the most important thing in the world to shove down the throats of religious people.
There will be politics, pluses and minuses in the Trump administration, but he won't take away relgious liberity and freedom or try to manipulate the social mores of society by a godless secularism.
The silent majority has spoken and perhaps Catholics seeing what HRC actually believed about Catholics in her leaked emails woke the world up to the Democrat Party's war on religion because its truths trump theirs!
27 comments:
Time to take out the garbage in the White House.
They weren't silent. The liberal media and elite looked down on them and ignored them.
How does a "religious majority" support a man who has bragged in print about his multiple adulteries?
How does a "religious majority" elect a man who has, on tape, bragged about f****** a married woman, who called her a b****, and who boasted that, when you're a celebrity, you can grab their p****** and get away with it?
There is very, very little here to do with anything "religious."
Silent majority...where? Neither Clinton nor Trump got a majority of the national popular vote last night. In fact she is now ahead of him in the national popular vote. And here in Georgia, Trump got about the same number of votes Romney won here 4 years ago, while Clinton got about 80,000 more votes than did Trump here in 2012. Clinton won metro Atlanta by almost 200,000 votes last night, compared to less than 13,000 margin for Obama 4 years ago. Gwinnett and Cobb Counties, Georgia's third and fourth largest counties---way ahead of Chatham BTW---went D for president for the first time since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
I'm glad I did not back either candidate but grudgingly prefer Trump over Clinton.
And faithless Catholic priests collaberated with the liberal media and elite!
Man, I used to be subject to the sin of pride concerning the Catholic intellect. No more after some of these posts.
Here's the deal: we were too weak and stupid to deal with Hillary and the progressive establishment. Trump wasn't. So we need a little humility to get to the next step. The next step needs to be establishing an alliance with Trump where our values overlap and negotiating mutually tolerable positions where we don't. He made a fortune doing just that so we have a chance. Hillary would have pulled our gumming mouths from her teats and dashed our brains out to get what she wants. He was strong enough to deal with her and we were not; on any level. I do not rule out Devine assistance, in fact I am grateful for it. But Guess who our Holy Mother sent to stop the catastrophy? Humility needs to be our watchword today.
Now we need to see if, through humility and respect, we can proselytize this man who seems to have the right instincts if not the right methods. Some of his outlandish comments strike me as made for effect (walls with Mexico and withdrawing from NATO, e.g.). I think he can be approached with alternatives to some of his specific proposals that will allow us to meet the need in a better way.
In Enterpise, Alabama there is a statue to the boll weevil. This pest infested the area in 1916 and wiped out all cotton production and devastated many families. Two farmers combined resources for one last crop and planted peanuts. It was a huge success and prosperity returned to Enterprise. The two farmers used a portion of their proceeds to erect the statute to the pest and it remains there to this day. Do we have the same humility to seize this opportunity? We better decide soon because this is not a win, I guarantee you. It is a respite only. And to mix my agricultural metaphores we better make hay while the sun shines 'cause Ole Scratch has more than one mistress waiting to spoil our day.
What values overlap?
Adultery?
Grabbing womens' genitals?
Fornication?
Self-aggrandizement?
The rejection of the need for redemption? "I am not sure I have," Trump said when asked if he'd ever asked God for forgiveness. "I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so," he said. "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."
If you think the "wall" and NATO comments were just for effect, why not think the same of the abortion comments? And if you think a candidate speaks "for effect," intending to change his/her position if elected, what the heck value is that?
There is a difference between just bad and just plain evil. Fr. George Rutler recently wrote:
"For ethical and aesthetic reasons, there may be some bad in certain candidates, but badness consists in doing bad things. Evil is different: it is the deliberate destruction of truth, virtue and holiness."
We were not electing a pope (we don't have that competency anyway--and too many Cardinals who have the competency vote incompetently--but I digress). Our country is under a curse. We are being punished for abortion and part of the punishment is that we are so blind that we cannot see it. God will not and can not bless a nation that rips the unborn from the womb.
Is Donald Trump distasteful? Maybe. I probably wouldn't want him to comment on the appearance of any women I know, but the days of the virtuous leader are long gone. We had a choice between bad and evil. Bad people can repent. Bad people can do good things. Evil is something else altogether. For me, the most evil thing about Clinton was her absolute phoniness. Nothing about her public persona rings true. She is all product when then lights are on and the cameras are rolling.
Trump, for all his faults, has done what no other pro-life candidate for president has ever done: He not only pledged to appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, but he published a list of his nominees.
An evil woman has been sent packing. Unfortunately, it took a bad man to do it. No other Republican could have beat her, because no other Republican was willing to do what it took. Trump was willing. Hopefully, we've learned something about winning from this, because I'm sick of watching pro-lifers keep learning about losing.
So Cletus Ordo said Trump will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Hmmmm...we criticize the Left when they vow only to appoint pro-choice ones, but it is OK to have a pro-life litmus test? How about we simply want someone to interpret the Constitution as originally written---not with one's own biases---and let the chips fall where they may?
If there is a candidate who espouses Catholic positions for supreme court justices and is willing to let it be known that they will only appoint pro-life justices (just as Obama was quite willing and open about appointing pro-abortion justices and justices that oppose Catholic teachings on marriage and religious liberty) then more power to Catholics to know this and vote their informed conscience which I think many did last night!
Anonymous. Yes, why shouldn't we advance our pro-life agenda via the courts? Why shouldn't our laws be grounded in Catholic world view and metaphysics? You're darn right we're going to have a litmus test from now on. You're darn right we're going to give "liberal" "progressives" a taste of their own medicine of federal bureaucratic moralizing via regulation!
If judges read the Constitution as written we wouldn't have either the contraception or abortion court decisions....or the decision allowing sodomy and then gay "marriage" to be rammed down our throats via the courts rather than via a constitutional amendment.
Name me one big "liberal" "progressive" goal that has actually been voted on? They've virtually all been via courts or via regulatory creep.
So yes, we are going to give you all a taste of your own medicine until you discover why an all powerful federal government might not be such a smart idea after all. Only when might we get your votes to de-fang this awesome beast.
If an atheist or a pagan is friendly toward Catholic teaching, even if for political reasons, than I would vote for an immoral or amoral candidate over one who despises the Catholic Church yet leads a personally exemplary like in other areas, which I think Obama does. But I hated how he tried to divide the Catholic Church, force a change on her and take away her religious liberty. Obama is a divider of Catholics, of men and women and law enforcement and criminals. He is to blame entirely for the polarization in this country.
So you favor judicial activism on the right, just as Obama favored judicial activism on the left. A justice should not be nominated based on his religious beliefs or personal views---he should be nominated for his willingness to follow the Constitution as (best we can determine) it was originally written or interpreted---even if that interpretation is such that we may not like it. Politicians are elected to legislate, not judges (or they should not be). And what exactly is a "pro-life" justice? Is it one who simply believes that Roe v Wade is junk law and abortion should be left to the states? Is he one who interprets the Constitution to completely outlaw abortion, outside the legislative process? Is he one who would allow for abortion in exceptional cases?
IF THE ELECTORATE WANTS PRO-ABORTION JUDGES AND A CANDIDATE SAYS HE WILL APPOINT HIM, THAT IS THE CANDIDATES AND THE ELECTORATES RIGHT, JUST AS IT IS THE RIGHT OF A CANDIDATE TO HAVE A CATHOLIC LITMUS TEST IF THE VOTERS AGREE TO IT. THE ELECTION OF TRUMP SHOWS WHAT THE VOTERS (A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE) WANTED. THEY GOT IT.
Anonymous at 2:39, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and it actually made things worse for the pro-baby killing business.
Actually, any religious litmus test, Catholic or otherwise, is forbidden by the Constitution.
And we who are Patriots and love the Constitution stand by that prohibition.
Gee...sorry to get you roused up on a technical point on appointment of judges. I think we actually agree on the appointments but not on the manner. I want Roe gone like you do...maybe living up here in the city of Atlanta does something. The last time Fulton County (Atlanta) voted Republican for president, Harry Truman was still alive and the Vietnam War was still raging---back in 1972. Been a while! 69% Clinton here yesterday! It will be great to see the Left cringe when the first Supreme Court vacancy happens in a Trump Administration.
Anonymous, the Constitution is utterly silent on contraception, divorce, abortion, sodomy, the definition of marriage, and other topics which currently are considered "settled" law thanks to liberal judges.
So finding a judge who accepts that the past 40 years have been an aberration will be a good start.
Here's a little inside secret: we're no longer "conservatives" who just want to 'conserve' the status quo. We've been taught by the Left and Alinsky that holding the line is a fool's errand. No. Now the goal is to completely roll back the sexual and socialist revolutions.
We didn't start this culture war of aggression. We didn't even realize it was a war until a few years ago. We've woken up late but we're awake now. We see the globalists for what they are and there's no live and let live with their ideology. Like Islam, it's a totalitarian ethos of total control. Against that sort of enemy one cannot long live in a secure armistice. One therefore must go for unconditional surrender (ideologically of course). We're not the ones talking about final solutions and re-education camps. If we win, everyone wins liberty from heavy handed centralized planned government control.
I so tire of the "but he's not perfect" crowd. you know the first stone thing. Just remember Moses couldn't enter the promised land, king David was a philanderer, Peter denied and Thomas doubted, Judas betrayed and Paul persecuted till struck blind. St Augustine was a little monster and had a concubine and a child, but became a saint and doctor of the church. Am I putting Trump on the same level, NO, however God didn't chose the perfect or the nice when the going got tough. And the only perfect one died on a cross and asks us to have faith and pray. Well right now the going is not nice and it will be tough, so pray and put your shoulder to the wheel, write and call or email you congress critter constantly, put them on notice and PUSH DARN IT
PS pray for a GOOD attorney general to dig out the corruption on both sides of the isle, the swamp is deep and the gators are going to bite
" it is hard to remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators"
Jus, the Constitution is NOT silent on religious litmus tests.
I didn't learn this from Alinsky, but from Madison.
Big E: Yes, My favourite prayers after communion are Augustine's contemplation of his unworhiness of the Gift. And I often gaze up at the painting of David with the other patriarchs and think how that bad ass took his humiliation like a man.
Keep warm. It's gonna be cold this winter in Russia.
It wasn't long before it became apparent that one aspect of the consitution wasn't working--the way presidents and vice-presidents were elected by the electoral college--and the 12 Amendment was ratified in 1804.
Neither this amendment nor any subsequent amendment ever touched on addressing the balance of powers that exist among the 3 branches of the federal government. But around this time (Marbury v. Madison, 1803), the Supreme Court began a long and progressively successful campaign to vastly extend its powers at the expense of the other brances. We've seen its fruits in Dred Scott, Roe and subsequent abortion rulings, and the recent gay 'marriage' ruling.
Democracy, frankly, is in crisis, and no one from either side of the political divide will say this out loud. What we need is an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to address this crisis and clip the wings of the Supreme Court, returning it to its intended function. This would also be the place to deal with the firearms crisis (sorry, NRA). Democracy is not a perfect system, but it's far preferable to rule by 5 unelected judges drawn from a self-selecting elitist professional clique. As it is, we are witnessing the end of representative democracy. You can see the muzzling of free speech on college campuses, in the professions, in the white collar workplace, and before long it will be everywhere.
While I'm at it...Hollywood and the American music industry have spearheaded the moral collapse of Western society. Look at the line-up Hillary recruited for her campaign. But why do people like this have such influence? Because they have money. The solution is provided by our friends in the global Pirate Parties: abolish performance royalties. Allow free copy of film and music. May take require a constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to do this too. But take away Madonna's money and you take away her influence.
I should be president. Shame on all of you who didn't write in my name.
Anonymous, Islam is a unique case because there is no separation between Mosque and State in Islam. To accept the Constitution as the final secular authority is - for a devout Muslim - a sin. No so for a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religion I've studied. We can accept a secular order and a religious order living simultaneously and independent of each other. That's why we're not trying to impose canon law on non-Catholics.
But Islam...Islam doesn't live and let live unless it's a very small minority. Once Muslims reach above 10% of a given polity's population they demand secular compliance with their law and hold their law supreme.
I'm not concerned with what Islam does or does not teach and believe.
"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The idea that, under our Constitution, a religious litmus test is acceptable is simply wrong.
Anonymous, are you suggesting that a Catholic cannot vote their religious beliefs? The first amendment is a limitation on the state, not the individual. So a faithful Catholic may not vote for party's or candidates that oppose or contradict the Catholic Faith.
TJM - A Catholic can vote his/her religious beliefs till the cows come home.
A Catholic may espouse religious litmus tests, "JUST AS IT IS THE RIGHT OF A CANDIDATE TO HAVE A CATHOLIC LITMUS TEST IF THE VOTERS AGREE TO IT." But that Catholic is rejecting the Constitution.
What the Blog Owner seems to miss is that, under our Constitution, the agreeing voters do not have the right to impose a religious litmus test of any kind on any one who seeks elected office.
Fr McDonald said: "If there is a candidate who espouses Catholic positions for supreme court justices and is willing to let it be known that they will only appoint pro-life justices (just as Obama was quite willing and open about appointing pro-abortion justices and justices that oppose Catholic teachings on marriage and religious liberty) then more power to Catholics to know this and vote their informed conscience which I think many did last night!"
I think he is so right. There is never going to be a perfect candidate, so one has to choose the one who will best uphold the truths that we espouse. Also, the Republicans were running the strongest pro-life platform ever. HRC would have vetoed all of that as Obama has done. What is more Hillary Clinton even stated she would not allow protests outside abortion clinics - therefore a right of free speech or freedom to protest would have been taken away.
I followed the LA Times poll - considered an outlier poll but one which apparently accurately predicted Obama's winning margin. That consistently showed Trump in the lead because of the increase in the black vote. Obama failed the blacks miserably and I think Trump was right to be asked to be given a chance. I hope that Americans will be better off after four years. There is a video on YouTube that has comments from Trump from the 1980s. Much of what he is saying now he said then, so I do believe he has a genuine love for America. He gets on well with the ordinary people, rather than the elites and it augurs well for a better America for all and a safer world than Clinton promised us.
Where I live the media has shown an absolute bias towards Hillary Clinton. So much so that I and others stopped watching the nightly news. The journalists are holding post-mortems and almost in a crying frenzy as a result of his election, as we have witnessed in America. The rhetoric against Trump has been extreme. Journalists were sent from here to cover the election. It illustrates what an important election this was for the world. All Catholics I know were hoping and praying that Trump would be elected because we felt that he brought hope for a better world. There is no doubt there has been no one more vilified than he has been for some of the stupid things he said, but he's not a politician. People often say things in the heat of the moment but he is the man for the moment. They say "fight fire with fire" and in the present climate we live in I think the world needs Trump. His election has been the answer to prayer because we dare not think of what the world under Hillary Clinton could have been.
Jan
Post a Comment