If I told you I strangled a puppy...

Would you hate me? Would you think I was heartless and possibly try to press charges against me for committing canicide? Would you want to lead a raging mob to my house if you found out I intentionally strangled a little, big-eyed, fluffy, cute-as-a-button puppy? Yeah, I figured you would. What if I told you I put my dog in a cage designed to be strapped to the top of my car, would you decline to vote for me as president? Or, what if I told you that there was a law being passed to allow breeders to selectively kill puppies at the point of birth by putting a knife through their brain or simply allowing them to perish from the elements? Does that upset you? Fortunately, I don't have to tether my rage into words, as I have the president of the United States, mister Barack Obama, to give his thoughts on allowing little puppies...oh wait, I mean babies...to die:
(emphasis mine)

As I understand it, this [law] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

That transcript came from 2002, during his tenure as an Illinois state senator, where he was arguing against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" which was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Senate and protects babies who survive botched abortions. Sounds humane though, doesn't it? But in case you're thinking I'm just pulling more Obamaphobic quotes...here's a bit more for you to digest from the person elected to lead our country. I encourage you to read through to the end to get the full effect of Obama's words (again, emphasis mine):

Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?
Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it.

How can anyone listen to this and not see the illogical thought in saying that a premature baby who is, for instance, delivered alive and healthy at 25 weeks has all the rights of anyone, but if the baby is unwanted it has no rights up until it's born at 40 weeks? Are there any doubts that he has indeed sold his soul to the abortion industry?

You know, I think I will take your expert advice on the size of my family!

Being the father of four kids has some pretty cool advantages. "Perks of the job", as it were. Near the top of the list is a universally free ticket to the advice of any and every self-imposed expert on why my family size is big enough and how I should probably look into learning "how these things work", so I'm not surprised next time a baby shows up. These experts range from strangers in the supermarket, coworkers, new acquaintances, and store employees.

Monica recently told a new coworker that she's the mother of four children. The woman, with her "family size expert" card proudly on display declared "Wow! So, you've decided your done, right?" Well, now that YOU mentioned it I suppose I probably should be done. I mean, the fact that you've known me for all of 83 minutes and can apply your extensive life experience to mine means you have every right to make pontificating statements on my behalf. Thank you!

I can remember on different occasions how some of my own coworkers, upon hearing that we were expecting our third or fourth child, exclaimed with great giddiness, winking, and sly nods "You really ought to look into how these things happen, Chris!" Shoot...I'm glad you pointed that out because this whole time I was always anxious that the stork was just going to show up at my house again with a little bundle that I would have to accept whether I wanted to or not. Whew, glad that I now know I actually have a hand in this whole process!

I tell you, it's a relief to know that I have so many people willing to give of their wisdom on behalf of my family choices. I also appreciate the fact that so many people stare me down in stores and mention, "You must be Catholic!" It's just good to know that they're sympathetic to the fact that I'm a "good Catholic" and that the Church wants me to blindly bring as many babies into the world as possible. Right?

Imagine if I went around asking people that have two kids whether they've decided to up their count to 5 anytime soon? You know, just randomly state at the grocery line something like "Hey there! That's a cute couple of kids you have. When are you going to get on the stick and have a few more?" What about asking the 30-something childless couple whether they planned to turn in their Audi TT for a Dodge Caravan and fill that puppy up? That would go over well. Inappropriate and quite judgmental, right? Fact is, I actually have no stake in how many kids you have, and wouldn't make you think it. So why do people feel uninhibited enough to randomly assume and assert we're gonna cut things off at four?

The truth is, we do want a big family. Not simply because we're Catholic, but for a number of reasons: 1) We both come from big families and recognize the joy that having lots of built-in playmates and lifelong friends brings. 2) We have been incredibly blessed, even through adversity, and desire to spread that joy and blessings to our descendants. 3) Family memberships to the zoo cost less per person when spread across 12 people. 4) Child tax credits are awesome, especially when multiplied by 10. The joking aside though, we WANT more kids!

I do find the whole "good Catholic" part amusing. I think people look at big Catholic families and assume we've sworn some double-secret uber-oath to the Holy Father that we will be very fruitful and multiply the church's ranks, or something. It might come as a shock to some readers to hear that I've never once heard "family size as a measure of virtue" preached from any pulpit I've ever tuned in to; or, that there are big families in denominations other than Catholic who value the big family life! Having a big family isn't about building a portfolio for the big Guy, or trying to be holier through suffering life out. A "good Catholic family" may have 10 kids or they might have 0 kids. Some even have three! We respect parents of any number of kids...being a parent is rewarding but it's also challenging and difficult! No matter the size, it's important to respect the work that all parents do. What matters most is that family size reflect God's will as you seek Him on earth. For us, that will hopefully mean a few more kids before it's all said and done and before I learn better. And, maybe somewhere along the way, someone in some grocery line or health department desk will look and ask "So, do you have any plans for more?"

Yes, I am in college...

(←Funny, not entirely accurate, currently a little too close to home.)

To all my readers who have inquired into my recent lack of posts, I say "thank you" for your appreciation of my blog. The last 1.5 months have been quite busy and quite honestly I got back on the blog without realizing how long it's actually been since I put fingers to keyboard here. Monica, me, and the kids had a really great month of May. A wonderful trip to the beach with even more wonderful friends, my 30th birthday, the first of two cousin's weddings for the summer, the start of my summer classes, and moving into our "summer home" (we are house-sitting for some friends until August) are just a few things going on in our lives that have kept us incredibly busy...and constantly remembering that we are incredibly blessed.

A few random thoughts:

I was at a Save-A-Lot store with Monica's younger brother, stocking up on some great deals I saw there. They had small canisters of coffee, regular priced $2.50, for $1. I had to buy 10. They also had Honey Bunches of Oats Raisin Medley on sale for around $2. I had to buy a dozen. So I'm standing there waiting to check out, dressed in my my shorts, t-shirt, and ballcap and joking with Ben. The lady behind us gives us a knowing smile and says to me "You must be in college!". Ummm...uhhh...well..."Yes, I am" I smiled back. That is obviously true, but what she probably perceived as a young kid just stocking up his dorm food stash is a guy with a lot more than just "I'm in college". How do you smile back and say "Sure am! I'm also a 30yo married father of four with a previous bachelor's degree who lost his job and moved his family across the state to pursue a new career in nursing and since I'm living with the in-laws I'm taking advantage of these awesome deals!"? Nope, simply "Yes, I am" will have to do.

I am also realizing much more lately how easy it is for me to fall into my trap of "I know best and I'm gonna argue my point". I often forget the saying (and I paraphrase) "the smartest people talk the least", or something to that effect. Basically, remember how stupid you actually are and take others' advice. A couple wonderful classmates of mine have been good enough to kindly and lovingly point out my argumentative and/or sometimes judgmental attitude, well after I should have come to the usual conclusion myself. Opportunities for humility are not always easy to embrace, but I'm trying...so thank you!

To end this random, "welcome myself back" post, I'll just say this: I am truly blessed. Blessed with a wife who loves me unrelentingly despite my numerous faults; wonderful children who are simultaneously a joyful blessing and a big-ticket item on my heavenly resume'; I'm blessed with real friends who I would do anything for and vice versa; blessed with a supporting extended family that humbles me with their love and generosity; and most of all I'm blessed with a God who loves me in spite of my failings and who provides for my every need, both known and unknown. Yes, I am a blessed man.

Liberal's "Inception" Moment and the War on Women

During the January 7th debate between Republican hopefuls, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos managed to pull a genuine "Inception" moment that may very well provide a better script than the fantastic Christopher Nolan movie by that name. During the debate, Stephanopoulos injected a question that greatly deviated from the main points that the nominees had been debating over the past several months. Out of nowhere, he asks this question:

Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

to which Romney responds:

if I were governor of a state-or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.

OK, let's take that as a solid answer and move on...right? Hehehe...oh you trusting Republicans, you! Much to the confusion of the candidates and the audience, Stephanopoulos kept hammering on contraception. Not two weeks later, on the late Friday afternoon of January 20th, the Obama administration quietly announced that all businesses, under the Obamacare laws requiring that they provide insurance, will also be required to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to the insured. Now, I'm not a genius, but that is just so ironic, is it not? How nice of George and his friends at ABC to frame up this question for the Republican hopefuls, just before Obama, Sebellius, et al rolled out this mandate.

Before we could even bat an eye our country witnessed the effect of this "Inception" moment. At the turn of the year not a single Republican was talking about contraception. Stephanopoulos mentions contraception during a Republican debate; Obama's regime announces that they will mandate all businesses to provide contraception; many Americans and especially Republicans and faith-based organizations protest...and by February the GOP was being painted as anti-contraceptive, anti-women, and finally as waging a "War on Women" for supposedly wanting to ban women's access to contraceptives. Much like the man who is accused of murder, tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, only then to be proven innocent in court...his good name has been slandered by a monologue pushed by the media and accepted by the un-critical masses.

Since January I have seen more slogans, signs, cartoons, etc decrying the "Republican War on Women." It's genius! It's like me going out in the street and yelling at the top of my lungs that I saw that guy I dislike trying to take advantage of some pretty girl. "He did it! He tried to take advantage of some girl! I saw him do it!" and everyone around me takes me at my word. If I yell a lie first and loudest, I will be taken at my word by those who are unwilling to challenge my claims and seek the truth.

This is truly a shameful moment for Democrats. Rather than coming forward and saying that they support a law mandating American people to violate their consciences, Democrats have turned the argument on their opponents and claim that Republicans, Catholics, and various other conservative groups want to bar access to contraception for all women, simply for opposing the mandate. "Republicans hate women! They're distracting from the economy to attack the females of this country!" So, you want us to stand here and take your lies, mandates, and restrictions on personal freedom and conscience rights without a fight or you will accuse us of changing the subject from the economy and jobs? Where did this even come from? No conservative I've ever heard of ever called for banning contraception. Many conservatives, like myself, desire to better educate the public about the dangers of contraceptives, but we see no reason to further tether citizen's freedom by making contraceptives illegal.

The fact is (and I know some of you reading this are going to dislike what I'm about to say) that the majority of elected Democrats are, by and large, a bunch of do-nothings. Our Democratically-controlled Senate, with more than enough seats to easily pass a budget, has universally rejected all of Obama's budgets they have received, as well as the House-approved budgets the Republicans have sent their way, to the tune of 3 years without a budget passed. You wanna talk about distracting from the economy? Let's talk!

The Democratic party, currently caught between their opposition to some of Obama's policies and their allegiance to their party, have taken the low road and began a shouting match with the Republicans over whether or not conservatives are trying to strip "womens' rights". All the while, conservative Republicans (for the most part) are trying to pass a balanced budget, protect Americans' constitutional freedoms, and focus on real issues while working to oust Obama from the White House in November. And for good reason. Obama has led the charge for outrageous deficit spending and undemocratic diktat over the past 3 1/2 years, all the while stumping for his unintelligible policies on the taxpayer's dime.

I know what you're thinking: Chris, you've managed to bring this discussion back to Obama and why he should be de-throned in the general election. Yes, I have brought it back. It's his fault. Republicans and conservatives at large had no intention of mandating anything, banning anything, etc. Obama does. His idea of American freedom is that we're free to do what he thinks is best. End of story. And so, with a simple, out-of-nowhere question during an otherwise innocuous debate, George Stephanopoulos pulled a Leo DiCaprio and planted that seed, deep in the public subconscious, that Republicans and conservatives at large want to take away contraceptives, keep a tally of how many babies we are or are not having, ban sex, take women out of the workforce, or whatever...all in the name of distracting from the real issue, the contraceptive mandate, the bloated deficit, the failed energy policies, etc that Obama has proffered on all of us. In essence, the Democrats have followed their old recipe of: 1) find an old, meaningless, nationally irrelevant horse, 2) beat viciously until dead, 3) keep beating. All in the name of distraction.

And inception.

A Day to Rejoice

Dear Friends,
As I write this, Catholics the world over are celebrating Christ's victory over death; either currently celebrating the Easter vigil mass or, thanks to the beauty of time zones, already celebrating Easter day. As a Christian, we see a very special significance on this holyday that marks the point at which Christ proved His divinity by rising from the dead. Christ, the very God we adore, died on Good Friday. God literally died. Can you even begin to think through this? We don't understand the mystery of it, so far beyond the scope of my limited human intellect is the fact that my God died for us to redeem our fallen nature. But He did. He hung on a cross and died. Yet, on the third day He rose again. Christ, fully human and fully divine, rose to life from a death he freely undertook because He loved us so very much.

So incomprehensible is the fact that He loves us to the point of death...His body sat in a tomb while the world trembled...and much to the joy of heaven and earth He rose again. Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. And without Easter Sunday, the value of Christ dying on the cross is meaningless. We cannot separate the value of either day without trivializing either aspect. So foundational to our life and faith is this mystery of the God-man's death and subsequent resurrection.

The beauty of the redemptive act of Jesus is that His self-sacrificing love applies to all. Whether we believe in His divinity and give credence to His teachings makes no difference. He died for those who do and those who do not follow His way, so great is His love. While we will never be able to love others in the infinite way that God loves us, it is essential that we follow the single commandment that Christ gave us while on earth: to truly love God and love others, even when love is not easy.

"Before you pluck the speck from your brother's eye..."

"Remove the plank from your own..." - Jesus Christ

Difficult words to live by, especially in today's world. Christ's call to look to our own faults first is a real conundrum, especially for those of us who are easily fired up by real or perceived injustices, societal immorality, and all manner of illogical thought. I understand where Christ wants us to go with these words: if we truly desire the good of our brother (fellow humankind) then we must remove those things in our lives that keep us from our own goodness.

The issue, though is that Jesus didn't just use this little parable to point out that we can't look past our own glaring faults when seeing the faults of others...He also mentions in the gospels that we're supposed to "turn the other cheek" when someone wrongs us, essentially saying that we must not retaliate, but should show real love by forgiving the trespass of another without personal recompense. This can be especially difficult when people or groups we might count as our "enemies" throw insult after insult toward people with beliefs similar to ours, and the temptation to go blow for blow with those folks is strong.

So the Lord really threw out a difficult pill to swallow. For those of us who were raised with a keen eye for morality and ethics, we probably tend to see a lot more "specks", because our eyes are trained to. The problem is that this can easily result in the growth of a large "plank" in our own eye that we hardly see as we become too focused on the faults of others and not on growing our own capacity for love. Of course, love does not mean license and if we truly want the best for another we must at times speak up. The challenge Christ gave us is to balance love, justice, and humility as we seek the good of all. And that's a challenge worth accepting.

Obama, States' Rights, and the Constitution

[Editors note: This post is a collaborate effort between me and my brother-in-law, Erich. I look forward to writing future articles with him.]

During a December interview on "60 Minutes", Obama was asked how he would rate his presidency. The president said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history." I'm not going to attempt to define exactly what he meant by "modern history", but for the sake of argument let's look at modern history as 1776 to the present, shall we? With that in mind, we'll review the significance of Obama's comments as they pertain to the United States of America; particularly to "the Republic, for which [the flag] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all".

I recently had a conversation with a brother-in-law of mine, recounting a story that scares me more than a little. Not too long ago in the history of civilization there was a country that broke into factions and began to war with itself. One side wanted to split off and create their own independent nation while the other side wanted to keep unity for the sake of power. Rather than look to the law of the land, the bigger, more powerful side declared war on the smaller, weaker side that wanted to create their own country. Many men fought, suffered and died and in the end the side desiring to keep their little country together won. Sound familiar? It should, it was the Civil War...known to some people as the war to end slavery but to others as the war for state's rights. This was the point at which the power of the national government began to take precedence over the power of the states. Subsidiarity, for a large part, was gone. [I want to clarify that I don't think states' rights are more important than granting individual liberty to all people. Slavery is evil no matter what. The Emancipation Proclamation was necessary to guarantee freedom for slaves, but it did not require a war.]

So, let's tie this back to the flag and its pledge. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is obviously not allegiance to a physical starred and striped item, but to the "republic for which it stands" ...so what does "the republic" mean? It is the concise political word for the nation - the One Nation for which the North fought the Civil War to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, the Pledge specifies that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. We generally take indivisibility for granted, probably not giving our 50-state union a second thought. The fact is, our constitution specifically provides for national solubility, should one or more states desire independence. Practically speaking, states speak first for its citizens, not the federal government. Our current president has little respect for state's rights (or citizens rights, for that matter) that don't align with his agenda; he inflicts his presumed power on all citizens without regard for their voice. Would this still be the case had the Civil War gone differently, or not occurred at all?

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In truth, even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid actually freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union"; as a union is not compulsory, but voluntary, they actually destroyed that union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature that was established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.

The Civil War was really fought over the issue of self-governance and state autonomy that our federation of states, our "United States of America" was founded on. Does this mean that I think the South should have seceded? No, I don't think they should have, but I agree with them on constitutional principle. As Erich stated during our conversation, "The Civil War is the point at which we went from being a constitutional federation to a national government." In the current system the federal government's rules trump everything else.

So how does this relate to Obama and his self-placement as 4th bestest behind FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln? Those of you that follow history will remember that these three presidents are some of the most prominent champions of national government's authority over the country's citizens that our country's highest office has ever seen. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and dismissal of the southern states' right to secede, FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society were progressive steps toward centralization of government power that has continued to build throughout the last 150 years and is currently being manifest in diktat by our current executive. Obama makes no secret of his willingness to impose laws, mandates, and sanctions upon the people that he was elected to lead. Abroad he has been both hawkish at times and sheepish at others, simultaneously throwing our troops under the bus and aiding wars or potential conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iran. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, contrary to his election promises. Our economy is stagnant at best and permanently weakened at worst, and for all his blaming of others Obama is the president and he has done nothing tangible to improve our global economic leadership. While promising to use a "scalpel" on the budget, he racks up more and more debt onto our shoulders and those of our children, with national debt significantly higher than ever before. Our constitutional rights as citizens are looked at by Obama as executive-defined, as he picks and chooses who qualifies for what rights. If you take his list and turn it upside down, Obama would certainly be closer to the number of 4th worst, but he didn't do this by himself. We have given our federal government and its "leaders" unprecedented and undeserved power. If our states, as constitutionally independent and self-governed units, began to exercise their rights and power, we would see a day in which the federal government's willingness to impose mandates at will upon we the people would greatly decrease. For all our sakes, I hope that day comes swiftly.