I attended a patriot type meeting at which a lady friend, came up to discuss local politics, and what part religion might play. She was concerned about the zeal of some Christians, and how it might turn off Jews. This was her concern, but she had completely written-off Muslims. I thought she might be suffering from a bad case of Islamaphobia. I had never seen her this negative about anyone, as she regurgitated what she had been told about Muslims. So I asked her, “Have you ever known any Muslims?” Her answer was an emphatic “No!”
I explained to her that I have known about a dozen Muslims, and that I liked them all. I found them to be respectful, and easy to talk to. I realize that many people who hale from these local parts, may not know any Muslims. I also acknowledge that in any group of people, there are good and bad. The bad Muslims are being sold to the public, so I would like to introduce my Muslim friends.
The first Muslim I ever met was a dental patient who immigrated from Africa with his Peace Corps wife. He had a great sense of humor, was good natured, and deeply spiritual. He reportedly prayed five times a day, and was constantly in and out of different fasts. One day while doing his check-up, I found myself studying his living-out of his faith. I asked if he thought his God, that he called Allah, was the same as my God. His confident response sliced through our discussion, “God is unique!” “There is but one God for us to pray to. He is unique!”
My second Muslim acquaintance, was a man named Mohammad. He rented an apartment from me, for a couple of years, with his two friends, Mohammad and Mohammad. He was very soft spoken, and was never late with their rent. The Mohammads painted some of the rooms, and gave notice when they left. The apartment had never been so easy to keep.
My third association with a Muslim came in the streets of Calcutta, India. I had gone on pilgrimage with about sixteen guys to help Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity. We gathered at the front of a former Jesuit school where we stayed, to make our first journey to the Mother House. A bearded man with a white head wrap approached me. He mistook me as a priest, or the person in-charge. He spoke very good English, and said he was a butcher. I informed him that we were on a spiritual pilgrimage. He smiled, and asked if I knew what was the ultimate question that every person needs to answer?
I guessed, “Do you love God?” Do you love Allah?
“No!”, he countered, and stressed his question again. “What is the question that everyone from Adam, to the two of us standing here on this street in Calcutta, need to answer?”
Absent my answer he gave it: “Who is my Master?”
Why do we do, what we do? Who do we serve? Who is my master? I was challenged in the reality of my faith in the gutter of a Calcutta street, by a Muslim. (Luke 7:9 "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.")
My fourth Muslim acquaintance came out of my favorite place for my morning coffee, 7-11. There was a short guy ,who worked the morning shift. He didn’t talk much, but was very efficient. This was about the same time when hate-Muslim e-mails began to permeate the web. These often inaccurate e-mails irritated me, and I would often voice my complaints in the office. During one of my ventings, my assistant volunteered that she recently had a flat tire in a downpour, on her way to her daughter’s school. She said that a guy stopped, and changed the tire in the pouring rain, and would not take any money. He told her that he worked at the 7-11 and was Muslim. It was my 7-11 coffee maker. (Luke 10:37 He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy". Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise.")
My wife and I attended a continuing education class for our computer system. It was an all day course and the class of about 25 decided that maybe we should send-out for pizza. I volunteered to go, and the guy who was sitting behind us bragging about his kids, offered to accompany me. We were all chipping-in, and he contributed for the lunch. When we returned, I noticed that he did not take any pizza. He told me he was Muslim, and was in the midst of a fast. I offered him his money back. He refused.
A couple years ago I gained three new patients of a husband, wife, and son who moved into the area. The son was a charming, polite kid, who loved to play soccer. In our conversation, I discovered that they were Muslim. With all the anti-Muslim hype, I cautioned the mom as she left from her last appointment, “Be careful!” Her beautiful dark eyes took-on a depth that was pure fear.
Lastly, in the most recent election that I participated in, I was invited to give a stump speech at the Baltimore Islamic Center in West Baltimore. All the politicians were well received. I was amused to see Neo-Cons, who had previously attacked me for being soft on “Islamic fascism”, because I was against Iraq and Afghan war. They were hob-nobbing with this room full of Muslims. One very distinguished doctor from the Center, spoke with clarity and directness. He said we do not want you to change your laws. He spoke with an urgency and seriousness that hinted of accusations that are unfounded. I liked him.
When I returned home from the patriot meeting I found this post on facebook. Hate Comes to Orange County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
If we begin attacking Muslims, who will be next?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Catholic Action Alert: You Get What You Pay For!
Being a pre-Vatican II Catholic who still treasures the teachings of the Church, I can commiserate with a sense of loss of our culture.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Let Jenkins Do His Job!
I love living in Frederick County! A county that has not forgotten the ultimate responsibility of the local sheriff to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Our republic is based on law that recognizes the ultimate authority vested in this elected officer. We expect him to even interpose his authority between state or federal government agencies, and Frederick County residents, if these agencies would violate the rights of our citizens in our county. I expect Sheriff Jenkins to: protect us from criminals, protect us from the problems with illegal immigration, and protect us from governments that would limit our constitutional rights!
We in Frederick County, are blessed with the best sheriff in Maryland, because he understands this responsibility. He was not appointed by some political lobby. Frederick County residents voted for him, as intended. Deciding who gets a permit to conceal carry, and in a more timely basis, is exactly what our sheriff should do. Make the gun permitting proposal a reality.
We in Frederick County, are blessed with the best sheriff in Maryland, because he understands this responsibility. He was not appointed by some political lobby. Frederick County residents voted for him, as intended. Deciding who gets a permit to conceal carry, and in a more timely basis, is exactly what our sheriff should do. Make the gun permitting proposal a reality.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Congressman Bartlett answers my question on TSA!!
Dear Mr. Hargadon:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the newly enacted Transportation Security Administration (TSA) procedures for passengers at U.S. airports. I appreciate the opportunity respond.
These new TSA procedures include arguably invasive pat downs and x-ray scanner images. I understand many American's concerns that these procedures threaten our civil liberties and are inappropriate and embarrassing. Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." There needs to be an appropriate balance between the privacy and freedoms travelers give up and the effectiveness of the security procedures. Moreover, heightened security measures must not infringe on our constitutional liberty.
I do not believe the federal government has proven to Americans' satisfactions that the new intrusive airport screening procedures are necessary to ensure safe air travel. That is why I support Congressman Darrell Issa's (CA-49), the incoming Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, call for stronger evidence that TSA, as currently organized and administered, is competent to ensure air travel security. Furthermore, I support Congressman Issa's Blueprint for Oversight of the Executive Branch. This report details how "the vast expansion of the power and reach of the Executive Branch of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has only increased the need for vigorous, unflinching Congressional oversight."
Thank you for contacting my office. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on federal issues that are important to you. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my Internet website http://www.house.gov/bartlett where you can sign up to receive e-mail updates regarding my legislative activity. It is a privilege to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the newly enacted Transportation Security Administration (TSA) procedures for passengers at U.S. airports. I appreciate the opportunity respond.
These new TSA procedures include arguably invasive pat downs and x-ray scanner images. I understand many American's concerns that these procedures threaten our civil liberties and are inappropriate and embarrassing. Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." There needs to be an appropriate balance between the privacy and freedoms travelers give up and the effectiveness of the security procedures. Moreover, heightened security measures must not infringe on our constitutional liberty.
I do not believe the federal government has proven to Americans' satisfactions that the new intrusive airport screening procedures are necessary to ensure safe air travel. That is why I support Congressman Darrell Issa's (CA-49), the incoming Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, call for stronger evidence that TSA, as currently organized and administered, is competent to ensure air travel security. Furthermore, I support Congressman Issa's Blueprint for Oversight of the Executive Branch. This report details how "the vast expansion of the power and reach of the Executive Branch of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has only increased the need for vigorous, unflinching Congressional oversight."
Thank you for contacting my office. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on federal issues that are important to you. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my Internet website http://www.house.gov/bartlett where you can sign up to receive e-mail updates regarding my legislative activity. It is a privilege to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett
Member of Congress
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Non-responsive Church/State
There seems to be little, if any, separation between Church and State when it comes to answering direct questions concerning essential issues, such as doctrinal application or our constitution, respectively. I attempted to contact both Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland's 6th District, and Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the Baltimore Archdiocese on the 18th of November, on two separate matters, both of which constitute essential policy. Congressman Bartlett's office was was originally contacted by phone, followed by a website e-mail. The Archbishop was contacted by e-mail, and then a personal mail. I have yet to receive a responsive answer to either.
Congressman Bartlett: (I left this e-mail through his website. December 2 at 8:38pm)
"I left a message at your Washington Office over two weeks ago as to why you had not spoken out on the TSA violations of our 4th amendment. Your staffer was unable to tell me where your position was on this critical issue. He also told me that I would be receiving a letter explaining... your position. I am still waiting! Do you support the 4th amendment of our constitution?"
(Summary of phone conversation posted on Facebook November 18th.)
"I called Congressman Bartlett's office to see what his position is on the TSA affront to our 4th amendment. His staffer said, "The Congressman will have to get back to me in a letter." A letter??? I don't need no stinking letter. I need someone to protect the constitution!!!!"
December 7th, 2010
Dear Archbishop O’Brien: (Follow-up letter to the e-mail)
"I sent you an e-mail on November 18th, under the subject of Election Supplement. It addresses my concerns with the presentation of candidate views in the Catholic Review’s, Decision 2010, Special Voter Guide insert. I have not received a reply.
As my party prepares for the next election cycle, my concern as to the political motivations of the diocese’s newspaper continues to fester. The Church preaches the truth on essential issues, and John Paul II the Great admonished the laity to become political. But, when we do, we are ignored and marginalized by the very Church that encouraged us to go forth and defend the essential matters of faith and morals.
It is difficult to defend a Church that preaches one thing, yet does nothing to direct the faithful, while at the same time, only contributes more to the tidal wave of media hype for politicians who promote state funded abortion, state funding of embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I guess you may not have seen my earlier e-mail. Be that what it may, I just needed to have a clear conscience, as I move forward making comments about the sincerity of the Baltimore Archdiocese."
(Original e-mail expressing my election concern.)
Archbishop O’Brien: Nov. 18th, 2010
I attended the dedication of the new chapel at St....
This November, I was on the ballot as the Lieutenant Governor, along with Eric Knowles for Governor under the Constitution Party of Maryland. Our party’s chairman, Mike Dawson requested that the Maryland Catholic Conference resurvey all the candidates before the general election, because the earlier primary survey was only done for the Democrat and Republican candidates. The Catholic Conference agreed. Thank you!
I was not however, appreciative of how the results were presented to the faithful: The Catholic Review’s Election Supplement. This supplement was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Each candidate’s answers were presented in a line, and it was necessary to decode the “A, D, or blank space”, with the questions which were printed earlier in the supplement. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction of ballot access candidates on these non-negotiable issues. This inability to simply state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure.
To promote these non-negotiable principles, and fail to clearly and simply state each candidate’s position of these issues, while at the same time aiding and abetting those who have positions directly opposite of Holy Mother Church, is pure, in your face, dereliction of duty.
Respectfully,
Mike Hargadon
Congressman Bartlett: (I left this e-mail through his website. December 2 at 8:38pm)
"I left a message at your Washington Office over two weeks ago as to why you had not spoken out on the TSA violations of our 4th amendment. Your staffer was unable to tell me where your position was on this critical issue. He also told me that I would be receiving a letter explaining... your position. I am still waiting! Do you support the 4th amendment of our constitution?"
(Summary of phone conversation posted on Facebook November 18th.)
"I called Congressman Bartlett's office to see what his position is on the TSA affront to our 4th amendment. His staffer said, "The Congressman will have to get back to me in a letter." A letter??? I don't need no stinking letter. I need someone to protect the constitution!!!!"
December 7th, 2010
Dear Archbishop O’Brien: (Follow-up letter to the e-mail)
"I sent you an e-mail on November 18th, under the subject of Election Supplement. It addresses my concerns with the presentation of candidate views in the Catholic Review’s, Decision 2010, Special Voter Guide insert. I have not received a reply.
As my party prepares for the next election cycle, my concern as to the political motivations of the diocese’s newspaper continues to fester. The Church preaches the truth on essential issues, and John Paul II the Great admonished the laity to become political. But, when we do, we are ignored and marginalized by the very Church that encouraged us to go forth and defend the essential matters of faith and morals.
It is difficult to defend a Church that preaches one thing, yet does nothing to direct the faithful, while at the same time, only contributes more to the tidal wave of media hype for politicians who promote state funded abortion, state funding of embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I guess you may not have seen my earlier e-mail. Be that what it may, I just needed to have a clear conscience, as I move forward making comments about the sincerity of the Baltimore Archdiocese."
(Original e-mail expressing my election concern.)
Archbishop O’Brien: Nov. 18th, 2010
I attended the dedication of the new chapel at St....
This November, I was on the ballot as the Lieutenant Governor, along with Eric Knowles for Governor under the Constitution Party of Maryland. Our party’s chairman, Mike Dawson requested that the Maryland Catholic Conference resurvey all the candidates before the general election, because the earlier primary survey was only done for the Democrat and Republican candidates. The Catholic Conference agreed. Thank you!
I was not however, appreciative of how the results were presented to the faithful: The Catholic Review’s Election Supplement. This supplement was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Each candidate’s answers were presented in a line, and it was necessary to decode the “A, D, or blank space”, with the questions which were printed earlier in the supplement. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction of ballot access candidates on these non-negotiable issues. This inability to simply state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure.
To promote these non-negotiable principles, and fail to clearly and simply state each candidate’s position of these issues, while at the same time aiding and abetting those who have positions directly opposite of Holy Mother Church, is pure, in your face, dereliction of duty.
Respectfully,
Mike Hargadon
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Maryland's Neo Quads
The Neo family’s announcement of their recent Maryland birth of quadruplets: Neo-Lifer, Neo-Family, Neo-Gunner, and Neo-Liberty, may not have been noticed by many citizens. The excitement of the recent election probably caused some to miss the announcement. The proud parents, Neo-Conservatives, have long been known for their espousing of conservative values, while supporting unconstitutional international foreign wars, and an unchecked stripping of our citizens’ individual rights. The Neo-Conservatives laid the groundwork for our current fascist regime, ensuring the continuation of the establishment’s raping of our economic wealth. The Neo family members, like many, are proud of the meaning contained in their very name: “a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” The Neos four newest additions to the political elite, promise to be regulars, so it would behoove us to recognize these cute little modifications.
Neo-Lifer had a long gestation. Early indications of his presence were seen during the 2008 Ron Paul campaign. In the Republican primary for the 2008 election, National Right to Life basically ignored Dr. Paul’s pro-life credentials, and his outstanding record in defense of innocent unborn children. Dr. Paul did not consent to Neo-Lifer’s daddy’s support of unconstitutional wars and deficit spending. Two years later, in Maryland, this little guy came busting out, as the Constitution Party of Maryland (CP) ran a group of candidates, who all professed to be pro-life. Even though several of the CP candidates have records of their submission of the Maryland Right to Life survey, no CP candidates were endorsed. Neo-Lifer is more concerned with nursing from the established party teat, than Life.
Neo-Family, showed his true self in the Catholic Review’s Election Supplement, which was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Maryland Catholic Conference did go through the trouble of resurveying all the candidates before the general election. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction. This inability to state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure. The Catholic Review baptized Maryland’s, and their own, Neo-Family.
Neo-Gunner fired his first shot for Second Amendment advocates in Maryland. This little guy was so ambitious that he took it upon himself to decide for all the members of the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore. After surveying all the candidates and inviting many candidates to give a second amendment speech, this little guy decided to trash any third party candidate into the unelectable bin, and just provide election recommendations based on the two party duopoly. Our little Neo-Gunner takes after his uncle who has also directed the NRA to ignore 3rd party candidates.
Neo-Liberty has got to be the runt of the four. She came forth stuttering the word, “libbbberty”. Like so many young ones, she had no idea of the words meaning, or where its importance lies. Take the non-partisan group Americans for Prosperity who hustled around the state giving rallies with non-partisan speakers like, Andy Harris, Ellen Sauerbrey, and Mrs. Bob Ehrlich. Many of their speeches were saturated with the word, “constitution”, but try to get an answer from them, as to where our war mongering powers are in the constitution? Maryland’s Neo-Liberty also cried from the Dr. Paul spin-off group, Campaign for Liberty. The state coordinator of Campaign for Liberty had been asked several times before the election to survey the candidates for governor in Maryland. He was asked because the governor of our great state may be the last person able to contain this run away Federal government. It never happened, and Maryland’s own Neo-Liberty took its first breath.
So now you have been introduced. Don’t make yourself a stranger! The next time you hear the Catholic Church talking a bunch of family tripe, or Maryland Right to Life pleading for funds for their political advocacy, or gun groups crying about no politicians are aware of a gun owner’s plight, or liberty groups demanding strong states rights, don’t be fooled. It’s just those Neo kids again.
Neo-Lifer had a long gestation. Early indications of his presence were seen during the 2008 Ron Paul campaign. In the Republican primary for the 2008 election, National Right to Life basically ignored Dr. Paul’s pro-life credentials, and his outstanding record in defense of innocent unborn children. Dr. Paul did not consent to Neo-Lifer’s daddy’s support of unconstitutional wars and deficit spending. Two years later, in Maryland, this little guy came busting out, as the Constitution Party of Maryland (CP) ran a group of candidates, who all professed to be pro-life. Even though several of the CP candidates have records of their submission of the Maryland Right to Life survey, no CP candidates were endorsed. Neo-Lifer is more concerned with nursing from the established party teat, than Life.
Neo-Family, showed his true self in the Catholic Review’s Election Supplement, which was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Maryland Catholic Conference did go through the trouble of resurveying all the candidates before the general election. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction. This inability to state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure. The Catholic Review baptized Maryland’s, and their own, Neo-Family.
Neo-Gunner fired his first shot for Second Amendment advocates in Maryland. This little guy was so ambitious that he took it upon himself to decide for all the members of the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore. After surveying all the candidates and inviting many candidates to give a second amendment speech, this little guy decided to trash any third party candidate into the unelectable bin, and just provide election recommendations based on the two party duopoly. Our little Neo-Gunner takes after his uncle who has also directed the NRA to ignore 3rd party candidates.
Neo-Liberty has got to be the runt of the four. She came forth stuttering the word, “libbbberty”. Like so many young ones, she had no idea of the words meaning, or where its importance lies. Take the non-partisan group Americans for Prosperity who hustled around the state giving rallies with non-partisan speakers like, Andy Harris, Ellen Sauerbrey, and Mrs. Bob Ehrlich. Many of their speeches were saturated with the word, “constitution”, but try to get an answer from them, as to where our war mongering powers are in the constitution? Maryland’s Neo-Liberty also cried from the Dr. Paul spin-off group, Campaign for Liberty. The state coordinator of Campaign for Liberty had been asked several times before the election to survey the candidates for governor in Maryland. He was asked because the governor of our great state may be the last person able to contain this run away Federal government. It never happened, and Maryland’s own Neo-Liberty took its first breath.
So now you have been introduced. Don’t make yourself a stranger! The next time you hear the Catholic Church talking a bunch of family tripe, or Maryland Right to Life pleading for funds for their political advocacy, or gun groups crying about no politicians are aware of a gun owner’s plight, or liberty groups demanding strong states rights, don’t be fooled. It’s just those Neo kids again.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Less Than One Percent Is "Not Enough".
Even before our candidates declared their intent to run for office, the motto of our Constitution Party of Maryland has been “principles over party”. We assumed this would not be disruptive to our party, since all potential candidates and officers are vetted on their adherence to our seven main principles; LIFE, LIBERTY, FAMILY, PROPERTY, THE CONSTITUTION, STATES RIGHTS AND AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY. We also assumed that as advocacy groups viewed our positions, they might endorse us, or throw us some print media. We figured that the one percent in the governor’s race, which we needed to maintain ballot access for the next election, should be doable. It was not! It may take a few days to process our loss at the polls, but I think I got the message: We just were, not enough.
Take our first principle, “Life”. We just were not pro-life enough. Even though our party’s executive committee questioned each potential candidate, and rejected half for their weak life position. Even though each of our candidates professed before our Executive Committee that: they believe that life starts at conception, that the rights of each human life should be protected using our constitution, and that Roe v Wade should be taken for what it is: not a law, just an opinion. Maybe you didn’t notice the accolades? There weren’t any. Our governor candidate, Eric Knowles, challenged a life-long career pro-abort, and a flaming liberal incumbent. We just weren’t pro-life enough? Not one of our pro-life candidates, were endorsed by Maryland Right to Life; not even our chairman, Mike Dawson, who ran for Delegate in 34b. He is arguably one of the best pro-lifers in Maryland, but the Maryland Right to Life failed to endorse him. Even Janet Baker, who writes regularly in Defend Life, and her blog, could not give our governor candidate a nod. This became perfectly clear as we sat at the Annual Pro-life Appreciation Dinner at which 500 people gathered for a great evening to celebrate those who support human life. Our table of ten, (half of them candidates), was placed next to a complimentary candidate information table, dominated by Harris propaganda, and bordered with “Ehrlich/ Harris” lawn signs. We just were “not pro-life enough?”
How about our second principle: “Liberty”. Liberty is the new word that the GOP just recently learned to say. After the 2008 defeat, the GOP was lifeless, and in dire need of support. Following George [Patriot Act] Bush, the GOP needed to tap into the grass roots energy, which their ostracized Congressman Ron Paul seemed to garner. So, they practiced some of his commonly used words like: the “constitution”, “free markets”, and “liberty”. Many of our candidates had a background, or an association, with Dr. Paul’s liberty effort, Campaign for Liberty. We were part of this movement. But, when we asked the Campaign For Liberty state leadership to survey the candidates for Governor, as to their liberty positions? “No can do.” The highest office in the state, the Chief Executive, the person responsible to interpose against a run amok federal tyranny on behalf of our residents, was just not important enough?
Oh, and then there is “Family”. Family is the main reason I have been active in the Constitution Party and this campaign. I loved my childhood family of my nine brothers and sisters in my little Catholic community. I knew that if the Catholic community were aware that a pro-life, and pro-family ticket was on the ballot, the 1 % should be chump change. That’s why our chairman, Mike Dawson, insisted that the Maryland Catholic Conference, against their original intent to just use the earlier two party primary survey, resurvey all the candidates for the general election. I personally assured that our governor candidate filled out this survey. In fact, he was the only gubernatorial ballot candidate to complete all questions in the survey. His answers were in agreement with Catholic family life on abortion, marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. This, you would think, should be big? Well, the Voters Guide Supplement to the Catholic Review, which presented Eric’s completed answers on one line, separate from the questions, required a bit of puzzle solving ability. Compare this one line listing of Knowles’ answers, to the full page, and photo, that took up a third of the supplement, on each of the pro-aborts, the one who promotes the gay agenda, and the one who fired Bob Smith for quoting the Catechism. We just were not pro-family enough?
Let’s not forget the issue that encompasses the constitution and states rights: our beloved second amendment. All of our candidates are supportive of our right to bear arms. Eric Knowles is a veteran and a huge supporter of a person’s ability to carry an arm for defense. Early on, Maryland Shall Issue, a guns rights advocacy group, presented themselves as interested in hearing from, and evaluating our candidates. Maryland Shall Issue is associated with the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore along with some 20 gun clubs. After the surveys were filled out, and great speeches were delivered, the table was set for encouragement. When the recommendations were published, the Legislative Committee for the Associated Gun Clubs passed-over third party candidates. When questioned on this, we were told, “Candidates must be electable, not just pro 2nd Amendment.” So why even bother filling out the survey and making a speech, if the gatekeeper has already deemed third parties as not electable enough?
We expected this from the two main parties, the controlled media, the Republican Party disguised as Americans for Prosperity, and maybe even groups like the “non-partisan”, Jewish council who sponsored the WJZ debate, which excluded all third party candidates, but advocacy groups? Where were the people, the members, and the Boards of these advocacy groups that discounted constitutional conservatives who tried to hold the line? I also did not see surveys from the Christian Coalition or the National Riffle Association.
I think we will all soon suffer from not doing enough.
Take our first principle, “Life”. We just were not pro-life enough. Even though our party’s executive committee questioned each potential candidate, and rejected half for their weak life position. Even though each of our candidates professed before our Executive Committee that: they believe that life starts at conception, that the rights of each human life should be protected using our constitution, and that Roe v Wade should be taken for what it is: not a law, just an opinion. Maybe you didn’t notice the accolades? There weren’t any. Our governor candidate, Eric Knowles, challenged a life-long career pro-abort, and a flaming liberal incumbent. We just weren’t pro-life enough? Not one of our pro-life candidates, were endorsed by Maryland Right to Life; not even our chairman, Mike Dawson, who ran for Delegate in 34b. He is arguably one of the best pro-lifers in Maryland, but the Maryland Right to Life failed to endorse him. Even Janet Baker, who writes regularly in Defend Life, and her blog, could not give our governor candidate a nod. This became perfectly clear as we sat at the Annual Pro-life Appreciation Dinner at which 500 people gathered for a great evening to celebrate those who support human life. Our table of ten, (half of them candidates), was placed next to a complimentary candidate information table, dominated by Harris propaganda, and bordered with “Ehrlich/ Harris” lawn signs. We just were “not pro-life enough?”
How about our second principle: “Liberty”. Liberty is the new word that the GOP just recently learned to say. After the 2008 defeat, the GOP was lifeless, and in dire need of support. Following George [Patriot Act] Bush, the GOP needed to tap into the grass roots energy, which their ostracized Congressman Ron Paul seemed to garner. So, they practiced some of his commonly used words like: the “constitution”, “free markets”, and “liberty”. Many of our candidates had a background, or an association, with Dr. Paul’s liberty effort, Campaign for Liberty. We were part of this movement. But, when we asked the Campaign For Liberty state leadership to survey the candidates for Governor, as to their liberty positions? “No can do.” The highest office in the state, the Chief Executive, the person responsible to interpose against a run amok federal tyranny on behalf of our residents, was just not important enough?
Oh, and then there is “Family”. Family is the main reason I have been active in the Constitution Party and this campaign. I loved my childhood family of my nine brothers and sisters in my little Catholic community. I knew that if the Catholic community were aware that a pro-life, and pro-family ticket was on the ballot, the 1 % should be chump change. That’s why our chairman, Mike Dawson, insisted that the Maryland Catholic Conference, against their original intent to just use the earlier two party primary survey, resurvey all the candidates for the general election. I personally assured that our governor candidate filled out this survey. In fact, he was the only gubernatorial ballot candidate to complete all questions in the survey. His answers were in agreement with Catholic family life on abortion, marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. This, you would think, should be big? Well, the Voters Guide Supplement to the Catholic Review, which presented Eric’s completed answers on one line, separate from the questions, required a bit of puzzle solving ability. Compare this one line listing of Knowles’ answers, to the full page, and photo, that took up a third of the supplement, on each of the pro-aborts, the one who promotes the gay agenda, and the one who fired Bob Smith for quoting the Catechism. We just were not pro-family enough?
Let’s not forget the issue that encompasses the constitution and states rights: our beloved second amendment. All of our candidates are supportive of our right to bear arms. Eric Knowles is a veteran and a huge supporter of a person’s ability to carry an arm for defense. Early on, Maryland Shall Issue, a guns rights advocacy group, presented themselves as interested in hearing from, and evaluating our candidates. Maryland Shall Issue is associated with the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore along with some 20 gun clubs. After the surveys were filled out, and great speeches were delivered, the table was set for encouragement. When the recommendations were published, the Legislative Committee for the Associated Gun Clubs passed-over third party candidates. When questioned on this, we were told, “Candidates must be electable, not just pro 2nd Amendment.” So why even bother filling out the survey and making a speech, if the gatekeeper has already deemed third parties as not electable enough?
We expected this from the two main parties, the controlled media, the Republican Party disguised as Americans for Prosperity, and maybe even groups like the “non-partisan”, Jewish council who sponsored the WJZ debate, which excluded all third party candidates, but advocacy groups? Where were the people, the members, and the Boards of these advocacy groups that discounted constitutional conservatives who tried to hold the line? I also did not see surveys from the Christian Coalition or the National Riffle Association.
I think we will all soon suffer from not doing enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)