Catholics MUST Vote 3rd Party

The problem is, Hillary is a pro-abort, clearly supporting the murder of children in the womb.

But Donald Trump is ALSO pro-death, repeatedly saying he would order America's military to kill small children in order to intimidate terrorists.

So... there is no substantial difference between the two major party candidates. Catholics cannot vote for either one of them.

Gary Johnson is pro-abort, so you can't vote Libertarian.
Jill Stein is pro-abort, so the Green Party is likewise out.

That leaves parties like the Constitution Party.
Anyone who says this country is no longer Christian is absolutely correct.

Now, here is the greatest irony of all.

From the point of view of winning the election, it DOES NOT MATTER how you vote. As the video below demonstrates, the person who buys the best hackers will win the 2016 election. Trump is absolutely correct to say the election is rigged. Any IT guy could tell you the same thing. The irony is, if Trump wants to win, HE HAS to rig the election. Every candidate who wants to win HAS to cheat, every candidate who wants to win has to rig the election. There isn't any other way to win anymore.

Given that 5000 people have access to the election database (GEMS), it is virtually a guarantee that someone is going to rig it, regardless of what the others do. So now, EVERYONE has to rig their own election if they want a shot at winning it. This is Prisoner's Dilemma on steroids.

So, it doesn't matter how you vote in your precincts, what you print out, what idiocy your cell phone or video camera records. None of that matters, because the hackers will be changing the numbers in the GEM database to suit themselves.

What matters is, who is the last hacker to access the database?
That's all that matters now.

So, you might as well vote your conscience.
In terms of who gets elected, it doesn't matter: your vote is whatever the hackers say it is.
There's only one way to change this madness, and we will be lucky if it were implemented by 2020, which it won't be, because too many powerful people have a vested interest in not implementing a real solution.

American Rebellion and the Voter Fraud Study

So the Democrat talking heads, that is, the MSM, are saying voter fraud doesn't happen, and they want to cite this study to make the argument that it doesn't. According to this study, there have been only 31 alleged incidents of voter ID fraud out of the 1 billion votes cast since 2000 AD.

Unfortunately, the man writing the study admits what the MSM doesn't want you to know. That is, the professor in question actually doesn't say anything close what the MSM wants you to think he says. These are his actual words:

Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens. 

When he says  "voter fraud doesn't happen", what he means is "people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else" - that doesn't happen. But he acknowledges that this is all he is looking at. He isn't looking at all the other ways to defraud the vote.

Unfortunately for this conversation, when most people talk about "voter fraud", they mean a lot more than his narrow definition. They mean not only "voting while pretending to be someone else" but also:

• fraud with absentee ballots. 
• vote buying
• coercion
• fake registration forms
• voting from the wrong address
• ballot box stuffing by officials.

But the professor's study doesn't look at any of those ways, as he himself admits.

But it gets worse. Contrary to the MSM assertion, the professor doesn't say "Election fraud doesn't happen." Instead, he says exactly the opposite: "Election fraud happens" and he certainly knows that these other methods are being used widely everywhere to commit that fraud. Even the Elections Commissioner of New York (a Democrat) acknowledges.as much: 

The professor isn't a complete fool. Election fraud happens. This is not news. Does anyone honestly think Tammany Hall didn't exist? That Chicago is not run by a Democrat machine that habitually falsifies the vote? How many senators and Congressman have been elected to office by more votes than there were registered voters? Heck, it happened in the congressional district where I grew up, was reported on the front page of the local paper, and no one was ever indicted, much less prosecuted.

Everyone knew the Congressman was fraudulently elected and everyone knew he had spent years buying up every judge in the county, so everyone knew he couldn't be touched, no matter what was on the front page of the paper. The Congressman served his multiple terms and is now, as far as I know, safely retired and collecting his Congressional pension, after serving himself in Congress for decades and having survived being an unindicted co-conspirator to at least one major Congressional scandal.  This is just business as usual, it is common throughout America, and everyone knows it.

So, when the MSM tells us "there is no substantial voter fraud", we all know they are either using a definition no one else uses, OR they are lying through their pearly-white teeth. Or both. In this case, both.

Now, I am going to go out on a limb and agree that voter ID laws won't stop any of the myriad ways to commit vote fraud that the good professor lists above. But when someone tells us that American citizens do not need photo ID at the polling booth when we absolutely MUST present it for every other single transaction we conduct with the government or its flunkies, when someone says THAT, then we feel as if we are being mocked.

And no one likes to be mocked.

You see, it's pretty simple. If you want to conduct voter fraud and you want everyone to look the other way while it happens because you want the job, its salary and - more important - its perqs, well, that's America. Americans are used to graft. It's the American way. After all, how many voters have inflated their resume, overstated their income on a bank loan, or similarly mis-represented themselves to get money they wanted? American voters are generally willing to do whatever it takes to turn a buck. As can be seen by our propensity to vote for murderous abortion-lovers, we Americans are money-grubbing, venal jackasses who don't care if children have to die as long as the economy stays in the black. If killing children is the price we must pay to maintain our way of life, then kill the little bastards and grind them up in the Insinkerator. In short, we understand ballot-stuffing, we are willing to overlook that because we can easily see ourselves doing the same, if that were necessary to get the job or the promotion or the loan or whatever.

But when you tell American voters, to our faces, that all that photo ID stuff is nonsense for purposes of voting, we start to think that maybe it is nonsense for everything else too. And if it is nonsense for everything else, then why are you requiring it of us for all those other transactions? If it isn't necessary for the most basic civic function there is, voting, then why are we forced to carry this crap at all? If you're going to break the rules to get what you want by using all of the fraudulent methods above, then cut us some slack and dump rules that are designed to prevent us from wriggling around the system the same way you do.

And if you aren't willing to dump the other stupid rules, then at least allow us to save face by pretending that photo ID is as important here as you pretend it is everywhere else.  We don't mind hypocrisy, we just want consistency in our hypocrisy. Without that, how can we look at ourselves in the mirror the morning after we have elected another child-murderer?

Americans just want a level playing field, that's all.
It's our way of life that is at stake here. 

An Inexpensive Alternative to Obamacare

Unable to afford your health insurance increases this year? Consider Liberty Health Shares, an alternative to health insurance that is much more affordable and more reliable than regular insurance. A family of six on the most expensive share plan will have a maximum monthly fee significantly under $500, with an annual “deductible” (AUA) of $500 per person or $1500 per family (more on that in a bit).  The least expensive plan is just over $100 a month.

Liberty HealthShare participants don’t pay a ‘premium’ each month, they pay a monthly fee. The fee is  shared among participants who have medical expenses for that month. So instead of having a private company pay the bills, all the people who belong to Liberty together pay everyone’s bills for that month – they share each other’s medical expenses. If you were a participant and had medical bills, other participants’ monthly contributions would fund your medical expenses and vice versa.

There’s an annual unshared amount (AUA) for each participant, similar to a deductible, which is an amount that cannot be shared. Once you pay your AUA, which is $500 per individual, $1500 per family, Liberty Health Share will cover all of your doctor appointments, medical tests, and any other medical expenses according to the plan you choose.  They will also renegotiate your bill to reduce the total cost to everyone involved, them and you.

Participants receive a free wellness check-up. Hospital stays, medical tests and x-rays are all covered. As a participant, I can also choose which doctor or facility I want to go to. With an HMO or PPO I would have to find a doctor within that specific network. Now I have the option to choose any quality care provider that accepts my health share card. If the provider chooses not to accept the card, keep the receipts and send them into Liberty; Liberty reimburses the expense. There is a discount card for prescriptions.

Participants in this cooperative fulfill the requirements of the Obamacare mandate and do not pay any penalty or tax for non-participation in the ACA.

The 3 Different Plans Include:

Liberty_complete-Liberty Share: $70% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $125,000 (Medical costs are shared on a per person, per incident basis, for illnesses or injuries incurring medical expenses when treated by physicians, urgent care facilities, clinics, emergency rooms, or hospitals (inpatient and outpatient)

-Liberty Plus: 100% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $125,000. Participants also qualify for pharmacy, chiropractic, dental, hearing, and vision services through Envision Medical Solutions (EMS)

-Liberty Complete: 100% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $1,000,000, Same services as above are available through EMS

If you would like to receive more information on this, send me the following information and I refer you to Liberty. I am providing this information because:

1. It may help some people find affordable medical care and 
2. Liberty Health Share gives a $100 bonus for every person signs onto Liberty when I send them the individual’s contact information below.

We have personally used Liberty for our health coverage over the last two years and have found that it covers our medical bills at least as well as regular insurance ever has. The monthly payment hasn't increased in the two years we have been on it. If I had any serious qualms about the product, you wouldn't be receiving this message.

If you find this information useful, and would like to learn more, please consider helping me financially - at no cost to yourself – by allowing me to refer you to Liberty Health Shares. Whether you end up joining is entirely your decision. That’s none of my business.

Please send me:

First Name

Last Name

State

Phone

Email address

If you do find this useful and do ask me for a referral, I will thank you by sending you a coupon for 20% off any purchase at BestCatholicPosters.com. I only get paid if you become a Liberty customer. But no matter what you ultimately choose to do, you get the coupon

Thanks for reading this.

My email is stevekellmeyer@gmail.com 

Emotionally Gifted Children

We need to start calling 

Down's Syndrome kids 

what they are

Emotionally Gifted

How to Stop Vote Tampering

As early voting begins in the 2016 election, there have been numerous reports of electronic voting machines "changing" the on-screen vote. Voters are being warned to pay close attention and keep a hold on their paper ballots.

That advice is a complete waste of time.

Look, any trivially competent programmer can print one result to the screen or the paper while storing an entirely different result in the database.

These reports that the "screen changed" are just demonstrations that whoever hacked that particular voting machine was completely incompetent. If a trivially competent programmer were involved, you wouldn't even know your vote had been hacked. The piece of paper you clutch in your fist would be as useful, and as valuable, as Monopoly money.

The only tech I know of that can stop vote tampering cold is the blockchain technology developed in 2009 for Bitcoin. There are some procedural issues to work out, but if blockchain were used, no vote could be compromised, the person who voted would be able to change his/her vote at any moment right up until the close of polls, all votes would be instantly accessible so anyone could count the vote and satisfy themselves as to the accuracy, and the vote would remain relatively (although not absolutely) anonymous.

The vote could not be broken by a programmer, a virus or a DDoS attack. Only a 51% attack could violate the integrity of the vote, and such an attack would be bloody obvious to anyone paying attention.

The electronic voting machines we have now are ludicrously easy to beat, as is the process by which they are used. The vote cannot be secured by returning to paper ballots - that's just stupid. Paper ballots were also ludicrously easy to beat. I know of no other technology that has even a hope of securing the integrity of an election.

Until we implement blockchain for our elections, the elections will not be decided by voters. Rather, every election will be decided by whoever employed the best hackers. Whether you like it or not, that's where we are now. Ignoring this reality is not helping anyone.

Catholics and American Politics

"Are you a Democrat, Republican or Independent?"
"Oh, none of the above."
"Excuse me?"
"I said, 'None of the above. I am Catholic.'"

Anti-Catholic Bigotry: A Proud History

Catholics have an odd political history. The Catholic outlook does not fit any particular American political movement, which is why Catholics have long been considered politically suspect. Everyone remembers the Democrat party invented the KKK to suppress the black vote, but few recall that it also suppressed the Catholics and the Jews. In fact, the largest lynching in the history of the American south was not a mass lynching of blacks, but of Catholics - in 1891, eleven Italian-Americans were lynched for allegedly killing a police officer.

Similarly, the national Know Nothing party was founded exactly one year after the Republican party, and the two had close ties. The Know Nothings were famously and virulently anti-Catholic. The Know-Nothing penchant for violence is perhaps best remembered in the success of a local chapter in burning down an Ursuline Convent in 1834, Almost exactly twenty years later, they destroyed a marble block donated by the Pope for use in the construction of the Washington Monument, The Know-Nothings "kidnapped" the block and threw it into the Potomac to keep Washington's Monument free of "popish" influences.

Modern Bigots: Clinton/Trump

Whether Democrat or Republican, political advancement in America has long been tied to displaying one's anti-Catholic credentials to a frequently bloodthirsty audience. Thus, it is no surprise to see Trump's hypocritical attack the Pope (to see Trump's complete statement, go here): 

Of course, the Pope did not question Trump's faith. In fact, the Pope publicly refused to believe that Trump was as bad as the press portrayed him, and publicly chastised the press for portraying him that way. The only way one could construe the papal remarks as an attack on Trump's faith is by assuming the reporter's caricature of Trump's faith was not a caricature at all, but rather absolutely accurate. In fact, the Pope did not confirm the caricature, on the contrary, he specifically questioned the accuracy of the reporter's caricature.

So, why did Trump respond so viciously, pretending he had been attacked when Pope Francis had actually questioned the reporter's veracity?  Trump responded that way precisely because Trump knows what all politicians know - in certain circles, you get more mileage for attacking the Pope than for agreeing with him.

Now Hillary Clinton is on the dock because the highest members of her staff had virulently anti-Catholic conversations, with the following documented example demonstrating the bias:

“It’s [i.e., Catholicism is] an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy,” Mr. Halpin said.
“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelicals,” Ms. Palmieri responded.
“Excellent point,” Mr. Halpin wrote back. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”

Actually, Catholics expect a well-educated person to be familiar with basic terms like "subsidiarity" and "Thomistic thought". Every politician claims to be well-educated. Clinton's emails demonstrate that Clinton's "best" people function at or below the educational level usually attributed to Trump supporters.

In General, What Does a Catholic Stand For?

An excellent question. For Catholics, Faith comes before country. We have a duty to Christ that supersedes any duty to secular authority. If it is a choice between obeying God and man, we obey God. Still, as Scripture says, we must also acknowledge that our leaders have power only because God permits them to, thus we are called to work within the law whenever possible.

Responsibility should be shouldered at the lowest possible level - the players at the lowest level of society, e.g., parents, teachers, etc., the people out on the street, doing the work, these are the people who should have the greatest voice in a process. Higher levels of authority exist not to rule over those in the street, but to help allocate resources so that those who know the problem best have what they need to resolve the problem. This is called the "principle of subsidiarity."

Since revolution, especially armed revolution, disrupts society, such movements always harm innocents, Acting with this in mind, Catholics are required to avoid fomenting rebellion or revolution if it can possibly be avoided. We are required to work within the system, not subvert it. These political principles, and many more, were clearly explained by Thomas Aquinas. In fact, Catholic political principles are drawn largely from his clear, logical analysis, analysis which summarized how human and divine action should interact. His summaries of political and theological principles are together known as "Thomistic" thought.

Catholics on Specific Issues

So, can some major principles, as regards America's culture, be enunciated?
Yes.

Quasi-Democrat principle
All people have the right to attempt to better their lives, so immigration must be as free as possible. Vatican City models this principle by not even having a passport check on its border with Italy. Anyone can freely enter the country at any time, and many of Italy's homeless take advantage of that fact every night, walking across the Vatican City border for shelter and food.

Quasi-Republican principle
That having been said, insofar as those laws are just, and do not violate human rights, immigrants have a duty to obey the laws of their host country

Quasi-Democrat principle
Everyone has the right to live their life as they think best, according to the primacy of a well-formed conscience.

Quasi-Republican principle
However, for anyone's actions to be acceptable, their conscience must be "well-formed." The state has every right to restrict actions which someone freely undertakes, but which would not pass the test of a well-formed conscience.

Quasi-Democrat principle
We all have a duty to care for the poor. This duty is bound by the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the poor should be taken care of by local organizations, not far-away government agencies. HOWEVER, higher organizations, such as city, county, state and federal government, have a duty to assist those local organizations. The government's duty towards those local organizations includes the duty to provide necessary resources, such as funding.

Quasi-Republican principle
Innocent life is always to be preserved, so crimes against innocent persons can never, under any circumstances, be justified. Thus, all forms of deliberate abortion, euthanasia, etc., must be illegal. There can be no exceptions. Period.

No. Really. Period. Done.

Quasi-Democrat principle:
While the state has the right to exercise the death penalty, that penalty should not be used if it can possibly be avoided. God is the giver of life. Since a criminal is one who makes war on the state and its citizens, we have to use the same principles in applying the death penalty that we use in the application of "just war." If we apply those principles, it is impossible to justify the death penalty in most cases.

Quasi-Republican principle
Marriage exists not only for the good of the spouses, but also for the good of procreating children. It follows both that (a) children have a right to grow up with their biological parents, and (b) parents have a duty to raise their children. For these and other reasons, homosexual "marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

Both parties like this:
It is legitimate to wage war, but only according to the principles of just war. Democrats got America into most of the last century's worth of wars, and Republicans have made sure the American war machine stayed funded. Both parties benefit from war. Unfortunately, neither party has ever shown great interest in restricting themselves to waging a just war.

Both parties hate this:
Contraception is an intrinsic evil and should not be permitted. However, contraception does not always directly take innocent life. As both St. Augustine and St. Thomas point out, in cases like this, the state may permit one evil in order to avoid a larger evil. For instance, the state may permit prostitution in order to avoid a greater violence. Since, as even Mahatma Gandhi recognized, contraception turns a woman into a prostitute, the state might permit legal contraception (i.e., legal prostitution) in order to avoid some other evil. Both of America's political parties want legal contraception, but they don't want anyone pointing out that they have thereby turned women into prostitutes.

Both parties SAY they like this, but both actually hate it:
Women must be respected.

Making contraception available turns them into prostitutes. Making abortion available turns them into accomplices to murder. Treating women like exchangeable prostitutes by engaging in serial divorce and re-marriage is likewise not respectful. Treating the vocation of mother as a trash job for someone too incompetent to make it in the business world is not respectful. Pretending that "male" and "female" are simply social constructs is not respectful. Electing politicians who treat the women around them in this way (all previous presidents in the last century except, perhaps, George W. Bush, please call your office. Hillary, get out from under the smears and coverups you have committed against your husband's rape victims and pick up the phone - this includes you.) is not respectful.

Conclusion

This is why Catholics hate both Trump and Clinton. Both candidates violate very basic principles of Catholic Faith. Hillary is the worst offender, because she calls for the murder of children. Trump is barely above her, for he calls for committing war crimes against innocent civilian families. But numerous additional violations in any number of subjects could be piled on.

America used to produce candidates who at least publicly pretended to stand behind principles that were recognizably Catholic. Today, both major parties have surrendered these principles. Catholics have no viable major party choice. Even Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, essentially matches Hillary in his/her "murder-for-hire" attitude towards children.

Catholics have to get our heads around this fact: Barack Obama is correct.

With the 2016 presidential candidates, it is now clear we are no longer a Christian country.
Catholics do not now, and will not soon, have a viable presidential candidate to vote for. We have been, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, living in Churchill's Wilderness Years. We simply cannot expect to see a viable candidate that Catholics can morally support for a long, long time.

Bye-Bye Miss American Pie

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

"What?!?!"

"Oh, screw that. Put up a wall, and send us only your very best, the ones who can really help turn a buck for us. You keep the wretched refuse on your teeming shore, we'll skim the cream off the top."

America... I don't know you anymore.... 

Pastors: Stop Complaining

Some Catholic pastors are whining that their congregations treat them badly.
Boo.
Hoo.

You wanted involvement from the laity.
You got it.
Stop complaining.

The Second Vatican Council asked for the laity to get more involved. The Council did NOT mandate that the laity agree with all the priest's/bishop's decisions, nor did it assert that one side or the other would always be right in how they acted.

Priests and bishops model behaviour to the congregation. If priests and bishops abuse the liturgy, then the laity see and understand the basic principle: abuse is acceptable! Thus, the congregation abuses the priests and bishops.

If priests and bishops question the Magisterium's authority, if they pick and choose which teachings of the Church they will endorse, if they cast aspersions on the Pope from the ambo, then the congregation will question the priest's and bishop's authority. The congregation will pick and choose which pronouncements of the pastor they will honor, the congregation will cast aspersions (or make Youtube videos) of the pastor and the bishop and post those on the Internet.

That's how life works.
With ubiquitous video recording devices, what goes around will come around with a vengeance.

The sheep drink from the same stream as the shepherd.
Shepherds should keep that in mind when they choose their streams.

If the pastor doesn't like how the congregation acts, it's because he can't stand looking at his face in the morning mirror. You want an obedient, respectful flock? Be obedient and respectful to the Church. If you aren't, then devil will take the hindmost, and that might well be you.

Voting and the Moral Act

When we say "voting is a moral act," we have to define our terms. The "moral act" means different things depending on what philosophy you espouse and how you define morals. Notice that "morality" is not the same as "ethics." Morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct. Ethics is a humanly agreed upon code of conduct. There is overlap between the two, but the two are not identical. I can do something that is moral, but unethical, and I can do something that is ethical, but immoral.

Take the example of the doctor who sleeps with his patient. Immoral? Unethical? Both? Neither? We can't tell from just the example. If the doctor's patient is his wife, then the act is perfectly moral, but it might be unethical if his particular specialty (for example, surgery) requires that doctors not accept close relatives as patients. On the other hand, if the patient is NOT his wife, the act is certainly immoral, but might be ethical because his particular specialty (for example, podiatry) lays no specific prohibitions on doctors having emotional relationships with patients.

So, if we accept that morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct, then the moral act, at least in Christian tradition, is made up of three elements: circumstances, intention and the act itself. Notice that the outcome is most definitely NOT part of the moral act. Again, in Christian tradition, God is the one who brings about the outcome, not man. Man proposes, God disposes. We do our best, but our best is not expected to be good enough to always accomplish our intention.

And so it is with voting. When we vote, we are not responsible for the outcome. Whether the person for whom we vote wins or loses is not our concern. We vote (act) for the candidates who fulfill the legal requirements of office (circumstance) with the intention of placing them in office. Whether they actually make it into the office, or even have a chance to make it into office, is not relevant to the morality of the act, which is my vote. As long as I vote with the intention that my vote helps this person get into office, I have provided the third element of the moral act.

In order for a vote to be a morally good act, all three elements have to be good, or at least morally neutral. For example, I have no right to intend to put an unqualified person into office. An unqualified person is not just someone who doesn't satisfy the laws of the state concerning the office. After all, a person may fit the secular qualifications (correct age, mental capacity, etc.), but still be unfit because that person is known to be morally unqualified. Perhaps he abuses power, perhaps he regularly and without remorse uses power to injure and/or kill others. Such a person is not worthy of my vote.

Now, I am aware that my vote is one out of hundreds of millions cast. There is simply no reasonable probability that my vote alone will actually put anyone into office or prevent anyone from taking office. Given the number of votes cast, my vote has essentially zero effect on the outcome of any election. In fact, as we have seen, even if it were otherwise, even if I were reasonably certain that my vote would accomplish my intention, the placement of a specific person into a specific office as a result of my vote would be an outcome, and outcome isn't part of the moral equation.

So, when I vote, I don't vote in order THAT someone may win. Rather, I vote in order to express the idea that this person is someone I know well enough and I trust well enough to act correctly while they are in office (whether they get that office or not). My vote is a statement about how much I trust another person, a statement that asserts the office-seeker's values are close enough to my own that I have good reason to believe he will serve others well while in office.

It is only in THAT sense that my vote is a moral act. My vote is a short-hand letter of reference. I don't look at the office-seeker and say "Well, he's not as bad as the others, and someone has to do the job, so I suppose he will have to do." Rather, I look at the office seeker on his own, without reference to the other office-seekers. Based on the assessment I make of this seeker alone, I determine if I know him well enough and trust him well enough to endow him with the power of the office.

This is the important part: If none of the office seekers are trustworthy enough, then none of them get my vote.

If voting is a moral act, then my vote is my personal moral statement.
That is all it is - it can be no more.
But neither can it be any less.

As a Catholic, I have a duty to make publicly clear that I am Catholic. If I can do that by voting for a particular candidate, thereby declaring that this candidate's values match true, substantial Catholic values, then I am bound to vote for the candidate. I cannot not vote for him. However, if I cannot find a candidate whose values are substantially Catholic, if I see all the candidates have values that substantially violate Catholic faith, then I am duty-bound not to vote, I am duty-bound NOT to endorse them with my vote. I am duty-bound NOT to contribute to handing them the power of office.

I do not have to choose between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. If these are the choices, then the Catholic thing to do is to imitate St. Thomas More, retire to my estate and refuse to make any public endorsement of anyone.

If I predicate my vote on what the outcome will be, I am playing God. I have, at that moment, become a consequentialist, a modernist, a fool. I am representing to myself that I have control over outcomes that I do not, in fact, have any control over at all. By the very fact that I already know my vote will not, and never can, be the single deciding vote in an election involving 330 million people, then pretending my vote is necessary for a specific outcome is farce. It is just me trying to convince myself that a dreamworld is reality, that my vote means more than it actually does. I represent myself as having more power than I could ever, even in the wildest reality, actually wield.

The choice in 2016 is between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. Thus, for the time being, I retire.

Just A Mild Case of Pneumonia?!

On Sunday, 68-year old Hillary Clinton collapsed from what her handlers claim was a case of pneumonia that was diagnosed on Friday. Despite video which clearly shows her essentially unconscious as she is being dragged into her van, she was not taken to a hospital.

Instead, 90 minutes after she was taken to her daughter's apartment (!), she was out on the sidewalk, bending over and greeting a small child. This is amazing, given that pneumonia causes low oxygen saturation in the blood, increases the probability of dizziness while standing or bending over, and therefore increases the risks of falls.

An elderly patient who has just collapsed from pneumonia will not be bending over to greet a small child. This sequence of events does not comport with pneumonia. Below are some medical website quotes about pneumonia in the >65 crowd. Links are at the beginning of the paragraphs:

A number of studies have confirmed that there is a high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with pneumonia in the elderly (Fig. 1).[1-5] These high rates have continued to impede the efforts of healthcare professionals, despite significant improvements in therapeutic options and public health practices. One-sixth of the six million pneumonia cases that are reported each year occur primarily in those individuals 65 years and older requiring hospitalization for pneumonia.[6] Over 90% of all deaths from pneumonia occur in this older population.

Community-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common reasons for admission to a general intensive care unit (ICU). Up to 22% of patients hospitalized with pneumonia are admitted to the ICU,[3–5] approximately 18–56% of whom will die during hospitalization. Appropriate delivery of critical care services for patients with pneumonia is particularly topical and important given how common community-acquired pneumonia is in elderly patients, with approximately one million cases per year in those ≥65 yrs in the United States.

Older people have higher risk of getting pneumonia, and are more likely to die from it if they do. For US seniors, hospitalization for pneumonia has a greater risk of death compared to any of the other top 10 reasons for hospitalization.

While successful pneumonia treatment often leads to full recovery, it can have longer term consequences. Children who survive pneumonia have increased risk for chronic lung diseases. Adults who survive pneumonia may have worsened exercise ability, Cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and quality of life for months or years. (emphasis added)

The pneumonia and influenza mortality rate is much higher for those aged 65 years and older compared to younger age groups. About 85 percent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths occur in this age group, and it represents the seventh leading cause of death in this age group.

Her people didn't seem to be very upset about her "pneumonia", nor did they treat it with very much concern. They certainly did not exhibit the level of concern that would be warranted if this were a recently diagnosed condition that had just rendered their candidate unconscious. And how does someone recover in 90 minutes from that level of incapacitation, especially if it were induced by pneumonia? How does a 68-year old woman manage that? Receiving no apparent medical care during or after the episode? Seriously?
Whatever Hillary has, it is:

• deeply debilitating (obvious from the first video)
• rapid onset with "halo" (victim can feel upcoming episode, thus she made it to the van)
• transient (obvious from the second video)

There are a lot of things that can do that.
Pneumonia isn't one of them.

Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

It is often said that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, the fact that Mary was conceived without sin. This is incorrect.

Thomas built a theory of sanctification that assumed an underlying scientific understanding of conception and ensoulment that happened to be in error, but was common throughout all the centuries preceding his own.

No one knew that women produced eggs, and this knowledge would not, in fact, be confirmed until the early 1800s. Since all things are created in, by and for Christ, the operations of the natural world are properly a subject of theology. Further, since God took flesh and walked in the natural world, the operations of the natural world are also part of the necessary foundation to Christian theology.

Unfortunately for Thomas, none of the Christian theologians had a detailed or complete understanding of how conception worked. Thomas assumed that conception happened first, and the rational soul was infused at some later point. This was an error. Despite this error he pointed out an incontrovertible fact:

"The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin..."  (emphasis added)

All he said was, the Blessed Virgin HAD to have been saved from original sin or Christ would not be universal saviour - a perfectly correct statement:

"If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place."

And he even admitted that celebrating the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was not a problem:

"Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception." (emphasis added)

So, he essentially admits that if his understanding of how ensoulment works is wrong, then the Immaculate Conception was properly a feast. He even admitted that his theory could be wrong when he agreed that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception could be licitly celebrated, since no one knew exactly when she had been sanctified. The reason no one knew was because no one knew exactly when the rational soul was infused.

He did not deny the Immaculate Conception, he only denied that Mary could have been sanctified before the infusion of her rational soul - a perfectly reasonable theological position. We don't baptize dogs because dogs don't have rational souls. We don't sacramentally anoint chairs or tables because they don't have souls at all.

If Thomas had known the infusion of the rational soul took place at conception - which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies - he would have instantly agreed that the Immaculate Conception was a reasonable teaching:

Since he merely proposed a theory of sanctification, and since he agreed that the liturgy of the Church was of more importance than his theory, he did not teach error regarding the Immaculate Conception. Instead, he showed the proper humility towards the Magisterium which is so often lacking in Christians today.

Catholic Truth in Other Religions

For reasons beyond my ken, the memes and quotes below have been popping up in my newsfeed. These quotes do not mean what many Catholics think they mean.

“Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them.” ~ Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910:

The Magisterium cannot be broken. Whether we are discussing papal decrees, conciliar decrees or Scripture, we need to spend a long time thinking about how to reconcile all the different statements of the Magisterium so they do not contradict one another.

While composing the Summa Theologica, the greatest non-Scriptural work the Church has ever produced, St. Thomas Aquinas reportedly spent hours in contemplation before the Blessed Sacrament, sometimes beating his head against the floor in frustration as he tried to work out how to reconcile all the different statements in the Magisterium.

If this were easy, If the Catholic Faith could be meme'd this way, if statements could be taken at face value without any deeper contemplation, we wouldn't need Fathers or Doctors of the Church. As it is, we do.

Every religion is attractive to men ONLY because every religion has some seed of truth. Since God is Truth, insofar as any system has some seed of truth, that seed of truth is a reflection of God's glory and therefore must be respected to at least that degree.

That is a fact.
None of the facts represented in this article are in contradiction.
All of the facts in this article must be read in such a way that they do not contradict.
Only when you have succeeded in doing that can you say that you have arrived at Catholic Truth.

What Went Wrong At Baltimore?

Traditionalist Catholics who don't know very much about Catholic faith (such as this man) tend to set great store by the Baltimore Catechism (BC). The more ignorant the traditionalist, the greater their love of the BC. Oddly enough, the Baltimore Catechism is arguably a prime example of how American Catholics, raised in the TLM tradition, never really understood the Faith. It is a shining example of the pre-Vatican II rot that the council was trying to repair.

To understand just how bad the Baltimore Catechism truly is, consider the issue of "mixed marriages", that is, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. The Bible minces no words on the subject:

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, (1 Peter 3:1)

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)

The early Church had no fear of the pagans. Every Catholic knew the Faith so well that each believer was expected to convert his or her unbelieving spouse. But how things change in just a couple of millennia! This is the BC's fear-filled command:

Q. 1327. Which are the chief commandments of the Church?
A. The chief commandments of the Church are six:
      ......
      ......
6. Not to marry persons who are not Catholics...  (Baltimore Catechism)

By the time the American Catholic bishops approached the problem, they recognized that they had stunk so badly at catechizing the faithful, and the faithful had stunk so badly at being catechized, that neither the ordained clergy nor their flock could risk associating themselves with non-Catholics, even via sacramental bonds. That is, the American bishops and their flocks didn't think even the saving graces of the sacrament of marriage, image of Christ's bond with the Church, would be sufficient to protect the Catholic from apostasy, much less convert the unbeliever.

Yes, in a battle in which the salvific graces of the Bridegroom contest with the pagan heresies of the unbeliever, the gates of Heaven could not be trusted to prevail. That's the Baltimore Catechism for you.

Now, anyone who has spent any time at all studying the precepts of the Church know that those precepts have changed wildly depending on geography and time period.

The Church in her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church (emphasis added). The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the "Catechismus ad parochos" published by order of the council and known as the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" or "Roman Catechism". We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to one's pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter. 

 It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:

• to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;
• to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;
• to go to confession at least once a year;
• to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;
• to contribute to the support of our pastors;
• not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

This list is the same (????) as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States. (question marks and emphasis added)

Read that last precept, as presented by the Catholic Encyclopedia, again. Notice what is missing. Notice how the encyclopedia's version of the precept doesn't say a word about not marrying the unbeliever. In fact, you can read the entire encyclopedia article and you would search in vain for the BC's "mixed marriage" precept in ANY of the provided lists, all written by saints and Doctors of the Church. This all the more striking when one considers how little love the Catholic Encyclopedia's own article on mixed marriage exhibits.

Now, one could argue that this entire article is but an argument from silence. But that is precisely the point. The precepts of the Church have never been put under double-secret probation. The whole purpose of the precepts are to make quite clear and quite well-known bedrock ecclesial principles. If something is not listed as a precept of the Church in any list by any father, Doctor, saint or council of the Church, then it isn't a precept of the Church, no matter how much some random lay person, priest or even individual bishop might wish it to be.

So, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism did not just back away from the idea that Catholics should evangelize everyone concerning the Faith, even their own spouses. It would be bad enough if this were true, but it is worse. Instead, again, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism actively misrepresented the Third Plenary Council's summary of the Church's precepts. 

The Baltimore Catechism has many faults.

• It is not logically structured, it does not begin with the Trinity as Aquinas did, but is instead structured almost haphazardly. 
• It is a question-answer catechism that consciously imitates Protestant catechetical methods (few today realize that Martin Luther's 1529 Small Catechism was the first question-answer catechism in history). 
• It is a catechism that teaches the sacraments in the wrong order, placing Confirmation after First Eucharist when all Magisterial documents clearly show the order of sacramental initiation is baptism, confirmation, Eucharist. 
• It is a catechism that is meant to teach only small children, but continues to be sought out by adults who have clearly never gotten beyond a child's understanding of the Faith.

But even if all of those grievous errors were ignored, we now have evidence that the Baltimore Catechism actively mis-represents the Faith.  And even if it did none of those things, the Baltimore Catechism would not constitute a useful tool for adults.

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (1 Cor 3:2)

When it comes to adult evangelization, the Baltimore Catechism is a hot mess. Due to its defects, it is really not any great shakes at teaching children either.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.  (1 Cor 13:11)

It is time for Catholic adults to become adults in the Faith. Adults learn by reading the Fathers of the Church, the saints of the Church, the councils of the Church. Adults put away childish toys like the Baltimore Catechism. Indeed, given what we have seen here, adults would be better off teaching our children directly from the writings of the saints and the Fathers, and ignoring the Baltimore Catechism entirely.

Ratzinger's Liturgical Commentary

Despite saying this as cardinal, once he was consecrated as Pope Benedict XVI, he NEVER offered the traditional Latin Mass.

That is quite telling.

America's Culture of Death

On the Rosary

The Rosary is a great private devotion that has received praise from many Popes. It is a prayer currently enriched with an indulgence, and historically has had many indulgences attached to it.

However, all that being said and acknowledged, the Rosary is not a necessary prayer.
Liturgy is a necessary prayer - every sacrament is wrapped up in liturgy, and we cannot attain heaven without the grace of the sacraments. But the Rosary is not liturgy, nor is the Rosary a sacrament. The Rosary is not necessary to attain heaven.

Not one of the Fathers of the Church prayed the Rosary.
Very few of the Doctors of the Church prayed the Rosary.

In fact, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church who was dubbed the “greatest saint of modern times” by St. Pius X, had this to say about the Rosary:

“I feel then that the fervor of my Sisters makes up for my lack of fervor; but when alone (I am ashamed to admit it) the recitation of the rosary is more difficult for me than the wearing of an instrument of penance. I feel I have said this so poorly! I force myself in vain to meditate on the mysteries of the rosary; I don’t succeed in fixing my mind on them.

For a long time I was desolate about this lack of devotion which astonished me, for I love the Blessed Virgin so much that it should be easy for me to recite in her honor prayers which are so pleasing to her. Now I am less desolate; I think that the Queen of heaven, since she is my mother, must see my good will and she is satisfied with it. Sometimes when my mind is in such aridity that it is impossible to draw forth one single thought to unite me with God, I very slowly recite an “Our Father” and then the “Hail Mary”; then these prayers give me great delight; they nourish my soul much more than if I had recited them precipitately a hundred times.”

Eastern Catholics use the Akathist Hymn, not the Rosary. They get to heaven just fine. The Church got along just fine for over a thousand years without the Rosary. The Rosary is a good personal devotion, but it is not necessary for salvation.

The Liturgy of the Hours, precisely because it is liturgy, is infinitely more valuable than the Rosary. The Liturgy of the Hours actually extends the grace of the Mass through the day. The Rosary, because it is not liturgy, does not do this. It does not matter what any private revelation, such as Fatima, Lourdes, etc., has to say on this point. Private revelations might recommend private devotions to private individuals. Private devotions are never, under any circumstances, greater than the liturgy, even if the recommendation to use that private devotion comes from a private revelation. Liturgy is always greater than private devotion. Period. The Rosary is a private devotion.

"Catholic" means "universal." Catholics can have different personal devotional practices. That's why we have different religious orders: Jesuits practice different personal devotions than Franciscans who practice different personal devotions than Carmelites. There is nothing wrong with deciding that a specific personal devotion is not for you. The Rosary is a specific personal devotion. It is quite possible to be a faithful Catholic with a deeply Marian bent and yet not pray the Rosary. Despite what many Catholics will tell you, there is nothing wrong with this.

As a Catholic, I can recommend my spiritual devotions to another Catholic. However, as a Catholic, I cannot deprecate other Catholics who decide my personal spiritual devotions are not helpful to them. My personal devotions are for me, their personal devotions are for them. Perhaps they find the Rosary helpful, perhaps they don't. Either way is fine. Either way is fully Catholic. That's between them and God. I have no business in that conversation.

Separation of Church and State

Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error... Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State." (Vehementer Nos #3, Feb. 11, 1906)

Separation of Church and state is a heresy.
The two can be distinguished, but never separated.

Man is made in the image and likeness of God. For this reason, man will always try to replicate his relationship to God in his dealings with other men. Thus, no man can actually succeed in separating his theology from his politics. It isn't possible.

In a democracy, where politicians are selected and elected, politics is necessarily a reflection of the theology that dominates the electorate. When a Protestant Congress outlawed contraceptives, that political body was merely reflecting 2000 years of Christian tradition. From the 1930s onward, when judges began to overturn the Comstock laws, we saw the United States move away from its Christian roots towards a eugenically-minded agnosticism.

Today, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the representatives of our major political parties, we see an inchoate paganism. It is not the paganism of the Norse, the ancient Greeks or the ancient Romans, all societies which celebrated martial values and delighted in constant war. Rather, it is a paganism that denigrates warfare but delights in sensuality.

Our desires have become our god, and now that god drives our politics.
Our theology will always be reflected in our politics - it cannot be avoided.

With this election, many of us are shocked to discover that Obama is correct - we are no longer a Christian nation.

Why Ted Cruz Supported Trump

Cruz supported Trump. He didn't formally endorse Trump, but then, he never promised to formally endorse Trump.

But Cruz's support for Trump was a lot greater than anyone could have expected.
Ted Cruz told everyone to vote for the principled conservative who supports the constitution.

We deserve leaders who stand for principle. Unite us all behind shared values. Cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect, from everybody.

And to those listening, please, don't stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.

That perfectly describes Trump, right?

Wait... what?!?!

Trumpkins argue it does NOT describe Trump?

Oh....

Oh... Wow.....

Madame President

Before Trump ran for President, he pulled a Loretta Lynch and asked Bill Clinton's permission to run against Hillary. His own staffers admit Trump never intended to be President, he just wanted free publicity. During the campaign itself, Trump reneged on his promise to support the eventual GOP nominee. Last month, June 2016, Trump hinted that he had no intention of being President. As for electoral support, Trump has no coat-tails  and provides no support for down-ticket candidates - the only candidate he has endorsed has been a pro-abort who lost by 30 points.

And then there are the polls. Notice how George W. Bush beat Kerry? George was frequently in the lead, in the run-up to July, and dominated the election from September onward.

McCain was ahead of Obama at least a few times prior to July, but was not able to beat Obama at all in the polls between April and July. He got a short-lived bounce only because of his Palin pick for VP, but predictably ended up losing.

Romney didn't even do as well as McCain. Apart from a couple of very short-lived blips immediately prior to the election, Romney NEVER beat Obama in the year of polling leading up to the conventions. Not once.

Like Romney, Trump has NEVER beaten Clinton in the polling. Not once. Not ever. Trump is doing worse against Clinton than McCain did against Obama. Trump is arguably doing at least as badly or worse against Clinton than Romney did against Obama.

From the beginning, all the evidence tells us Trump intended to at least use the presidential run as a personal publicity campaign and at best divide the field by destroying the Republican's best candidate(s) while handing the election to his friends, the Clintons. Trump crowned his achievements by deliberately destroying Ted Cruz' convention speech, permanently undermining the natural Republican leader and thereby assuring downstream chaos among Republicans for years to come. In fact, Trump arguably and deliberately sabotaged the entire Republican convention.

Those who believe any of Donald Trump's lies, or who still believe Donald can win, have been Trumpwinked. A person is Trumpwinked when they believe a con man/politician, e.g., Donald Trump.

The facts are quite clear.
A vote for Trump has always been a vote for Hillary.
The destruction is complete.
Hillary Clinton is our next president.

UPDATE:
I finally found Nate Silver's forecasts for the Romney-Obama matchup:

Here's the current graph for Trump-Clinton

Modesty and Scandal, Part 2

There is a lot of evidence that women engage in "slut-shaming" much more than men. It isn't that women are concerned about modesty, rather, women don't like the competition. Women form groups to ostracize and bully "outsider" women, and "modesty shaming" is one way to accomplish that goal.

If traditionalist women were really interested in following ancient norms, then traditionalist women would encourage men to wrap their hands in clothes to avoid touching female skin. In fact, this was arguably one of the reasons both sexes wore gloves whenever they appeared in public during most of the Victorian era.

Despite the fact that gloves were, for centuries, considered an essential part of a public wardrobe, I have never heard a "modesty" warrior argue that glove-less women are dressed immodestly. Which makes me think this isn't about "modesty", it is actually about females using "virtue-signalling" to crush the female opponents in the competition for snagging and holding onto a mate. That is, the women are not actually interested in modesty, rather, they are interested in signalling how good they are, and how trashy their opponents are.

Do I need to point out that this is not  a Christian motivation?
Yes, I probably do.
Which is why this follow-up to my earlier post on the correct Christian attitude is necesssary.