Gee, here is a big idea. How about, instead of whining and complaining, Catholics should get involved and insert their views and talents!!
Naw, that would requiring actually doing something. Faith and works anyone?? It is easier to attack those that DO. Ya know, like the Lepanto fighters, rosary and sword.
BTW-many in Ca AIP are Catholics, like it or not, thanks to Calvin, Luther, et all, we have 30,000+ Prots groups. Kind of hard to have a Catholic nation, when most of the 1/4-1/5 of USA citizens are mostly pew Catholics. or separatist minded Trads. Post the 10 comamndments, either put the numbers-not the words or let private individuals post the version they have. We all know tha the Prots reworked the "10" to attack Catholics for statues, etc. As it is approaching 500 yrs of Revolt and most Prots know no better, it is up to us to get INVOLVED. I would not attack the posters, as it aids the atheists more than revealing truth to Prots
Here is a Catholic willing to DO. He also takes Cardinal Mahoney to task. I do have some questions to ask Jim, will be calling him soon to get some definitive answers. I know he is Pro-Life and no Kerry/Kennedy:
Founder of Minutemen targets run for president
Jim Gilchrist eyes bid with Constitution Party, claims Republicans 'sold out our sovereignty'
Posted: April 30, 2006
9:44 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, is considering a run for president in 2008 representing the Constitution Party.
Gilchrist has just returned from Florida where he met with the party's national committee.
Chairman James Clymer told WorldNetDaily the party was excited about the possibility of Gilchrist as its marquis candidate.
"Yes, indeed, we are interested," Clymer said. "Gilchrist spoke to us last weekend in Tampa and our people asked Jim then if he would be the candidate. We think it would be wonderful if Jim Gilchrist would seriously consider being our presidential candidate."
Gilchrist told WND the only candidate he would support as the Republican Party presidential nominee in 2008 was Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
"If John McCain enters the race for president," Gilchrist said. "I will definitely run. John McCain should have forfeited his right to run for president on the Republican Party the moment he put his name on immigration legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy."
Gilchrist and the Constitution Party both agree on the need to secure the southern border with Mexico. Commenting on the street demonstrations planned for tomorrow, Gilchrist said they are nothing more than "a declaration that we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law, but that we are being ruled by mob rule."
Asked whether he felt President Bush's "guest worker" program or the administration's "pathway to citizenship" were reasonable compromises, Gilchrist reacted sharply: "The Republican Party is going to pay a huge price for pandering to what they think is going to be an illegal-alien vote and for their reckless disregard for the rule of law. The Republican Party has sold out our sovereignty."
Gilchrist told WND that he thought his third-party candidacy could be viable, noting "the country is ready for a third-party candidate, just like the country was ready for Ross Perot in 1992."
Gilchrist was harshly critical of Bush's leadership on the immigration issue.
"The president should resign," Gilchrist asserted. "The Congress should begin impeachment proceedings if President Bush will not resign. President Bush has shown he is incompetent to handle his job. It amounts to dereliction of duty that President Bush has left our border with Mexico wide open while supposedly he is fighting a war on terror."
Asked if he thought the recent arrests by the Department of Homeland Security cracking down on companies who hire illegal aliens was effective, Gilchrist dismissed the administration's efforts.
"It's nothing more than a show," Gilchrist argued. "DHS just served up another 'photo op.'"
"The political fix is on," Gilchrist warned. "The president thinks he has a compromise that the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership can ram through Congress, but it's going to end up being jammed down the throats of the 300 million people the president is supposed to be preserving, protecting and defending."
Gilchrist dismissed President Bush's attempt to get "comprehensive immigration reform" passed by Congress before the August recess. "Any law the Bush administration supports," Gilchrist predicted, "will be just like all the other immigration laws – a sellout. The administration plans to forget about the enforcement parts as soon as President Bush can shake hands with Ted Kennedy, right after he signs the law into effect. It's all a wink-wink game the Republicans have started playing with the Democrats. Both parties are really just the same. Neither party wants to secure our border with Mexico."
How about "guest workers"?
"The 'guest worker' program, or whatever the PR guys at the White House decide to call it," Gilchrist answered, "will be nothing more than an amnesty. We're going to wave the magic wand and 30 million illegal aliens will somehow become citizens, despite the fact that they march under the Mexican flag and make up their own national anthem in Spanish. Pretty soon there will be 50 million illegal aliens here. Who knows? As far as George Bush and Sen. Ted Kennedy are concerned, the more the merrier."
The Constitution Party supported Gilchrist in 2005, when he ran as an independent for Congress after Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., resigned to become chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Committee. Gilchrist received 25.5 percent of the vote in the general election, losing to Republican John Campbell. At that time, Clymer put out a strong statement supporting Gilchrist's candidacy. According to Dec. 15 party press release:
Jim Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party, believes that a major change is in order. Both the House and the Senate have been thoroughly corrupted by influence-peddling for decades, Clymer said. But the solution is not to run the Democrats to power or to elect a more ethical Republican majority. The solution, according to Clymer, is to jettison the two major parties altogether and to start afresh with principle-based leadership.
In 1992, Howard Phillips left the Republican Party to found the U.S. Taxpayers Party and ran as the party's presidential candidate. In 1995, the party became the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission as a national political party. In 1999, the party changed its name to the Constitution Party.
During the Nixon administration, Phillips headed two federal agencies, serving last as the director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.
A third-party candidate could represent a viable challenge to the Democrats in 2008.
A recent Rasmussen poll indicated disillusionment over President Bush's immigration policy could lead to a tie, with 31 percent of voters going for the Democratic Party presidential candidate, 31 percent going for a third-party independent arguing to build a wall on the border, and 21 percent for the Republican candidate.
Gilchrist, a Marine veteran with 13 months combat experience in Vietnam, presents himself in an unassuming fashion.
"I'm just an average Joe citizen," Gilchrist told WND. "What we've proved is that an average Joe citizen can come out of nowhere and not only create the Minuteman Project, but can also run for president. I want to bring common sense and rule of law back into our national dialogue."
(Note, Tancredo is more moderate on social issues-Jim supports Tancredo's immigration stances. Phillips' wife and 2 children are Catholics-many in Party are and do NOT hide Faith).
We Catholics need to encourage him and help to guide him as he is sick of liberal, pandering clergy as well as we all are. I talked to him for some time, good fellow. Again, I have some questions to "vet" with him. He does have some off views about Israel, no doubt due to the confusion and Judiazing by our Clergy. He is still in beginning stages of Recovering Republican
From his site:
Right to life
As a moral conservative, I stand firmly on the words of the Declaration of Independence in defending the right to life. I do so proudly, without equivocation or exception.
According to the Declaration, there can be no right to abortion, since abortion means denying the most fundamental of rights to human offspring in the womb. The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights, including the right to life.
If human beings -- whether legislative bodies, courts, mothers, or anyone else -- can choose who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights upon which rests all the rule of law is utterly corrupted. We then become a nation governed by the arbitrary rule of those with privilege and power.
There can be no question that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life -- and thus a breach of the fundamental principles of human equality and justice enshrined in our public moral creed and our Republic's most respected institutions.
Some people talk about "viability" as a test to determine which human offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. But might does not make right. So the mere fact that the person in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical power, and thus completely dependent upon her for sustenance, gives her no right whatsoever to extinguish that human life, since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right to kill.
Medical procedures deliberately resulting in the death of the unborn child are therefore impermissible. Medical intervention to save the mother's physical life that has the unintended consequence of failing to also save her unborn child is not abortion, per se, but rather a human tragedy.
Not only does the Founding philosophy of our great nation preclude us as a society from destroying innocent human life, but it also precludes us from engaging in embryonic stem cell experimentation, and other medical technology practices that violate the dignity and humanity of life at its earliest, most vulnerable stages.
As for the so-called "right to suicide," and related practices such as euthanasia: whatever emotional arguments may be made to defend such practices, they represent a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and for that reason alone I reject them.
Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we intentionally kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the power that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Roe v. Wade
As one who is pro-life without exception and who also believes in the rule of law, I believe that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided. I will work as a member of Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade, which effectually has prohibited state legislatures from passing laws to restrict abortion on demand.
As a member of Congress, I will fight the use of tax dollars to promote abortion or aid groups that provide abortions. I do not support so-called "exceptions" to abortion based on the circumstances of the child's birth. All children have the inalienable right to life granted them by the Creator and invoked in our Declaration of Independence, which right is properly protected under our constitutional system.
On this ground, I also oppose embryonic stem cell research and other forms of fetal harvesting where unborn children are produced like crops in a field for their body parts, and I will vigorously oppose efforts to fund this so-called "research" with tax dollars.
As a member of Congress, I will fight to create a Culture of Life where all human life is protected from conception to natural death, and I will be a champion for those who are unable to speak out for themselves.
2nd Amendment / gun control
I strongly support the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and recognize its critical role in defending the First.
The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-discipline, self-mastery, responsible self-government -- and it is therefore tyrannical in principle.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.
As your Congressman, I will uphold the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. I oppose attempts to prohibit or unreasonably constrain ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and I stand against all laws that would require the registration of guns or ammunition.
Gun control laws make criminals out of law-abiding citizens while the real criminals continue to ignore the law. Rather than passing new gun control laws, we should be focusing our efforts to secure our borders and keep out the illegal alien criminal element that is responsible for so much of the violent and other crime in our nation and in Southern California today.
As the leader of the free world, America has a right and a duty to do all in her power to protect herself at home and abroad. We must vigilantly defend our sovereignty, independence, and identity as Americans. In doing so, we must be certain that our policies, military might, and foreign relationships are executed with prudence and justice.
It is the most essential obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of actual or possible enemies -- including the threat of foreign invasion and sedition. Therefore, I advocate in the strongest possible terms the imperative of securing our national borders, and enforcing existing immigration law. I oppose in principle unilateral disarmament, the influence of international military practices, and any dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure.
As a member of Congress, I will lead the fight against ceding our national defense to such bodies as the United Nations and will stand tall to protect our sovereignty over our national defense.
Under no circumstances would I consent to committing U.S. forces to serve under a foreign flag or command.
As a nation, we should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of America's freedom, sovereignty and territorial integrity above all. I support the development and maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. I will vote to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation.