Don’t Vote

There are 16 3rd Party candidates on the Colorado ballot for POTUS. I am so sick of it all. I can’t stomach a vote for a candidate that is morally, ethically, economically, and politically bankrupt.

I am going to go to the polls and cast my vote on the myriad of local issues that will affect my city, county, and state. But I am not going to cast a vote for POTUS.

How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The state owns the “democratic process” as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the state and no one else.

On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.

From an interesting little article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Amendment 48 Redux

See, I am not the only one that thinks this:

Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Conley also clarified their approach to Amendment 48, saying it has been “a source of confusion for many Catholics and other members of the Colorado prolife community.”[It is a source of confusion only to the Bishops. To pro-lifers it represents legal recognition of personhood at conception. To refuse to support this is inexcusable.]

The bishops said Catholics are free to support or oppose the amendment, calling it a “prudential matter,” adding that the bishops “do not support” the proposal. [Defending life through the voting process is never a prudential matter. Chaput JUST called out the governor for claiming Catholics do not hold a fertilized egg to be a person. But when legislation is proposed, legally defining this very thing (!), the Bishop refuses to support it.]

They noted that the Colorado Catholic Conference had previously outlined “problems with its strategy,” referencing a June 5 letter from Colorado’s bishops which argued the amendment “does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.” The bishops worried the Supreme Court would not hear any legal case concerning the amendment or could even reaffirm the pro-abortion rights jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade.[Can they divine the future? So we shouldn't pass legislation defining personhood starting at conception because these Bishops think it won't succeed? So we shouldn't even try? A bill should be supported if it is good and upholds the truth. This one does. Yet the Bishops risk torpedoing it, because they disagree with the strategy? Unbelievable.]

“Catholics are not required by Church teaching to support Amendment 48. But they are required to respect the personhood of the developing child from life’s earliest beginning,” Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Conley said in their Wednesday statement. [By NOT voting for Amendment 48, they are, in fact, failing to respect the personhood of the child. Catholics always have an obligation to vote for life in every capacity possible.]

“In that light, Governor Bill Ritter seriously confused the Amendment 48 debate.” [No, your excellencies. You have.]

(from Veritas Vincit)

Colorado Personhood Amendment

There have been many different strategies over the past 35 years as to how to fight the Culture of Death on a political level. From propositions for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to any other numerous forms of legislation, nothing seems to work.

As we bring this issue of Life closer to the local level, the States have tried the outlaw of abortion, parental notification, and other such tactics. Right now, the state of Colorado is being pushed to adopt a Personhood Amendment “to define a person as including any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

This sounds like a straightforward tactic that has deep implications for abortion in the state of Colorado. And yet, about 1/2 way through the article we read this:

The Catholic Conference of Colorado has said this isn’t the right time to try to pass an outright ban, preferring to chip at Roe v. Wade.

How is this even possible? What “chips” has any legislation in Colorado made against Roe v. Wade? How is Colorado any more Pro-Life than it was 35 years ago?

Just in case you do not know, the Bishops of Colorado are:

• Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. – Archbishop of Denver
• Most Reverend Arthur N. Tafoya, D.D. – Bishop of Pueblo
• Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan, S.T.D – Bishop of Colorado Springs

Back prior to the 2004 presidential election, many Catholics hailed Bishop Sheridan for his defense of the Holy Eucharist by publicly stating he would forbid Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, elected officials and judges.

But according to another article, now is not the right time:

The bishops, however, are not rejecting the amendment. “We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion.  Individual Catholics may certainly choose to work for its passage,” they said.
The reason the Catholic leaders gave for their choice not to back the amendment was that other pro-lifers had raised “serious questions” about the timing and content of the amendment.

Why is timing an issue? How many more babies must die before the timing is “right”?

And what about the “content” of the amendment? Please, Your Excellencies, explain to us what questions pro-lifers have raised about this amendment. Your flocks may not be well educated, but we are not stupid. Show us why the content of the amendment would actually do harm.

Otherwise, you seem to be caving-in to unknown political and economic pressures at the cost of countless human lives.