Sotomayer and the Tyranny of Race

In every important respect Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election was a victory for racism. First there was the racist claim that his skin color made his election somehow significant for black Americans with whom he otherwise shares no common moral or historical heritage. Second, his stubborn advocacy of the parent's right to murder her child made it a victory in principle for the racist notion that "inferior" physical development leaves people with no rights that must be respected by their supposed betters. Third, the US Constitution has been openly set aside on account of fears that racist violence would result from investigating the facts regarding his citizenship at birth (lest they support the conclusion that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States.) Truth, right and the Constitution all sacrificed for the sake of racist fears and premises.

The reaction in some quarters to the Sotomayer selection smacks of the same racist mentality. "Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, called Sotomayor's nomination 'a monumental day for Latinos. Finally we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land.'" There was a time when we understood that those who served on the Supreme Court had first and foremost to prove that they represented the whole people of the United States, whose sovereign will constitutes the legitimacy of the Constitution it is their duty to uphold. The notion that someone would serve as the representative of this or that race or special interest tended to disqualify them from service.

Of course, a person proposed for a seat on the bench can't be held responsible for how others see her. But in a speech she reportedly gave in 2001 "Sotomayor has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see….I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging…but I accept that there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

If her assessment of herself was correct, her own words disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court. Unless we mean to overturn the whole idea of Constitutional government, the decisions of the justices of the Supreme Court should be based on the Constitution and the laws. No justices can be allowed to "accept" judgments based on gender or ethnicity. If they do, what becomes of the promise of liberty and justice for all, of equal rights and the equal protection of the law?

Does the notion that it's somehow acceptable to disregard the Constitution on account of race in Obama's case now make it acceptable to confirm as a Supreme Court Justice someone willing to allow their ethnic identity to distort their judgment of facts, and the basis for their decisions? Tragically, this is exactly the racist legal culture we would expect to result from the racist political mentality the Obama faction exploited to achieve his electoral victory.

Unity is always on their lips, but their hearts are far from it. Instead of a national government that represents our common heart for justice and liberty, the Obama faction means to create a fractured reflection of all our differences, until we forget how to see, think and act as Americans, regardless of those differences. With this dissolution of the American identity they prepare the way for the dissolution of the United States itself, so that a strong sense of our national identity no longer poses an obstacle to their plans for a new, global regime that sets aside our "provincial" concerns with right and ordered liberty.

Of course, those concerns are precisely what raise our national consciousness above the level of mere group selfishness, so that our concern for the good of our nation becomes a concern for the rights and decent freedom of all humanity. The sacrifices we commemorate every Memorial Day are marked by headstones and memorials in far flung corners of the globe where Americans gave ultimate proof that this concern is no pious abstraction. But it seems that what they died to preserve for others, we are now quietly surrendering ourselves under the mesmerizing influence of racist fears and lies.

Such is the change Obama represents. But where is the hope in it, except for those who succeed, as he did, by invoking the power of the very evil their success has supposedly overcome? "Racism is dead," they seem to say, "Long live the tyranny of race."

Anne Coulter’s Slyly Dishonorable Mention

A friend recently forwarded me a link to Anne Coulter's latest column with the following comment:

"Anne's Coulter's latest column is entitled: "Notre Dame Holds First Alan Keyes Fundraiser"

Here is a multiple choice test:

Anne Coulter uses Alan Keyes' name to

a. piggyback off of Dr. Keyes' fame and courage in order to get people to read her column (Dr. Keyes is never even mentioned in the body of the article)

b. give herself credibility by creating the appearance of being on the same side of the abortion issue as Dr. Keyes

c. to distract readers from realizing that she explains (in two consecutive sentences) that Roe v. Wade is both "lawless" and "the law of the land"

d. promote her latest "pro-life" idea of allowing the people the right to vote on whether or not babies can be killed."

Naturally I took a look at the column. My friend was right. Except for the shrewdly deceptive title, my name did not figure in the article at all. As I reflected on this oddity, one possibility occurred to me in addition to the choices listed. The title leaves the impression that somehow or another I benefited financially from what I did and endured at Notre Dame.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Not long after I received the forwarded link, I got a phone call from the lady who helps me keep my schedule. She reported that the controversial nature of my efforts at Notre Dame is already adversely affecting requests for speaking engagements, which is my main source of income for my family. It wouldn't be the first time that my commitment to the pro-life cause has had this effect. Some time ago, as a result of my efforts to promote better understanding of the importance of US support for Israel's existence, I was often invited to speak at fundraising events for Jewish organizations. But in my political efforts I gave unstinting priority to the defense of innocent life. Thanks to strong support for so-called abortion rights from some quarters in the Jewish community, as this priority became known it virtually eliminated such requests for speaking engagements. (Ironically, in the political realm my firm commitment to the defense of the US-Israel relationship contributed greatly to the failure of efforts to join forces with the Constitution Party last year.)

The same sense of priority led to my departure from the Republican Party. Again, die hard Republicans unwilling to admit and act on the betrayal of moral principle by the Party's leadership, have assured that I am now unwelcome at political events where once I was a sought after voice.

Combined with the general impact of the current economic crisis, all this has resulted in a situation that is just about as far from a "fundraiser" as it's possible to get. My involvement in the events at Notre Dame even interfered with my ability to devote enough time and effort to this blog site over the last two weeks, and it has suffered as a result. Meanwhile a well remunerated pundit like Anne Coulter slyly implies some mercenary motive behind the work I do for the sake of the moral principles without which our liberty cannot survive in any form. Perhaps that's because, judging others by what they see in themselves, it's the only motive some people can understand.

By email and other means good people have communicated their support for the efforts made by the courageous people who joined in the effort to counter the Notre Dame Scandal. Many of them have concluded by saying that they hope I won't "disappear" again, but will keep working for the cause of life and liberty. Apparently, despite their good hearts, they still rely on the lying and sly propagandists of the so-called mainstream media for their perceptions. I have never "disappeared" and never ceased to do what I can toward the restoration of American liberty. God has blessed me with the heart to persevere in the effort to revive America's allegiance to His will. The spirit therefore is willing, but the material means are weaker than ever. It appears that, like the contestants on the game show, I have used my last material lifeline in this latest effort to fulfill my Catholic and Christian duty to the integrity of my faith. Still, it is better to lose all here trying to do what's right than to lose all in eternity.

It's a sign of the times. People lament the disappearance of rights they will not defend; of faith for which they fear to witness; and of leadership they will neither provide themselves nor materially support. I thank God that there is still a faithful remnant that understands how self-defeating this is, including those among my readers here who have helped to keep my efforts going, on this web site and in general.

The Notre Dame Scandal- A Brief Report

Last Friday (May 8) I and others concerned with Notre Dame's scandalous invitation and extension of an honorary degree to Barack Obama were engaged in peaceful, prayerful witness to truth on the Notre Dame Campus. We walked onto the campus praying the rosary and pushing strollers that illustrated the Church's teaching with respect to the objective evil of abortion. At the behest of Father John Jenkins, the President of the University, we were detained by the UND police and turned over to the civil authorities. At the time of our arrest we were not defying civil law, but obeying the laws of God and the directives of the Church and its leadership. We sought to counteract the scandalous impression given by University authorities that it is compatible with Christian faith and Catholic teaching to honor and hold up as an example of good conduct someone who has made himself the focus of abortion evil in the world today.

Yesterday I sent a letter to David Tyson, the Provincial Superior of the Indiana Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross urgently requesting a hearing at which I and the others injured by Father Jenkins' abuse of his authority can present our grievances and seek relief. Unlike Father Jenkins, we are acting with respect for Christ's instruction that people of faith should work out their differences within the communion of the faithful before calling upon civil authorities who may or may not act with respect for the laws of God and the teachings of the Church. This is why I sought to meet with Father Jenkins before I joined in the spiritual rescue efforts occasioned by the University's scandalous behavior. He did not respond to my request. In this he displayed the same obdurate indifference to spiritual considerations that has exemplified his conduct throughout this scandalous affair. He has encouraged a bunker mentality within the University of Notre Dame community, by treating other members of the Body of Christ, even those in communion with the Holy See, as if we are "outsiders".

This mentality contradicts the "emphasis on Community in Catholicism" cited in the University's mission statement but utterly ignored in the actions ordered by Father Jenkins and his colleagues. Archbishop Burke of the Vatican and the American bishops who have asked that the invitation and honorary degree be withdrawn; the hundreds of thousands who have signed the petition with the same plea; the millions of Catholics and prolife Christians they represent: though part of the Church communion, the body of Christ or the community of the faithful, all are apparently to be treated as criminals if they dare to set foot on the Notre Dame campus to question the University administration's will and judgment.

Where is the humility that should characterize Christian leadership? Where is the love toward other believers that should give glory to God? Instead of ordering arrests and persecution, a true Catholic and Christian heart should seek to converse in order to instruct (if there is misunderstanding) or to learn. Instead Father Jenkins has reacted with a harshness that bespeaks fearful guilt, using force to dispose of opposition. If, despite the opinion of the Vatican, the bishops and so many of the laity, he and his colleagues are right to honor evil, why are they afraid to deal openly and respectfully with both the Church authorities and fellow believers who disagree?

They react with forceful abuses of their authority because they cannot properly defend their action in terms of the laws of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They therefore substitute force for persuasion. In this too they honor evil, by imitating its methods.

Forgive Us Our Trespasses

[FYI: This past weekend Fox news reported the arrest of Randall Terry as he protested against Notre Dame's invitation and honorary degree for Barack Obama. (See Notre Dame: Promoting the Glamour of Evil, and An Open Letter to Father Jenkins.) According to the report "Terry was taken to the St. Joseph County Jail on criminal trespass charges." He has since been released after posting a bond. In light of this occurrence, I feel bound in conscience to make the following statement, commitment and call to all who labor in defense of the God given and unalienable right to life.]

With the arrest of pro-life servant Randall Terry, Father Jenkins and the University administration at Notre Dame take their adulation of evil to a new level of spiritual atrocity.

In a little less than two weeks they will welcome to the university campus a man who represents the most abominable and extreme commitment ever known in US politics to destroying the God given right to life of innocent human offspring. With their actions and the "honor" they confer upon Obama, they will actively promote the lie that it is possible to dishonor God blatantly and unashamedly, yet be somehow "honorable" in the eyes of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Christ said

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:31-40)

These words must ring in the ears of faithful Christians as they consider the grim reality of abortion. Every time abortionists rip a child limb from limb within the womb; every time they crush an infant's fragile head; every time they have scorched the life from its body with a death dealing chemical solution; every time they scrape its nascent cells of life from the walls of a womb- Jesus is savagely beaten again; his skull pressed down with thorns; his limbs pulled recklessly in their sockets; his hands and feet pierced through with nails; his breaths infused with fiery pain; his life finally extinguished; every time.

And every time there stands vociferous in the taunting crowd, the ambitious man of blood, Barack Obama. He is crying aloud, "Let Him be crucified." He is justifying the torture, forcing bystanders to aid in the atrocity, assuring that the nails are paid for and the henchmen of evil well fed and rewarded for their role in the daily crucifixion. Even the garments of the innocent children (their little organs or their stem cells), like the vesture of Christ, he prepares for division among those who perpetrate the slaughter.

All his life Randall Terry, seeing this passion play of evil repeated over and over again in our day, has born witness bravely and shamelessly against it. On the day of crucifixion, Christ endures the punishment reserved for infamous rebels and criminals. Fearing that they too would be treated as criminals, Peter and most of the other disciples run and hide. So too do many of us today. Though we profess to believe that abortion breaks God's fundamental law, we will not stand boldly with Jesus as he endures humiliating injustice. We fear for ourselves and shrink from association with the bloody and terrible images of torture and death. But through the years Randall Terry, and those who share his lion's heart for justice, have stood with the Mother of our Lord at the foot of the Cross. They have been sprinkled with the blood and water that gushed from his wounded side. They have received from the pierced and bleeding hand of the Lord the Blessed Gift by which he made his Mother Our Lady (Notre Dame), the mother of all the faithful ones who endure with Him to the end, receiving His crown of pain, which is also the crown of life.

Instead of cringing inwardly at Randall Terry's bold willingness to be arrested for bearing witness to God's truth, those who understand the gift of Christ's words and example must be moved to imitate his boldness. Tragically, ironically, a supposedly Catholic university and its administration have stepped forward to be the Bull Connors of this era's most clear and pressing battle for God given human rights. They have declared it an offense peacefully to demonstrate the evil of abortion. They have declared it an offense, prayerfully to bear witness to truth on a campus supposedly guided by and subordinate to that truth. Though it is an offense to them, it is a duty to Truth, and to Christ and to God. Wherever there are faithful hearts drawn to do this duty, they must feel now the vocation to join Randall Terry in defiance of this intimidation. I will join him. I ask others who all these years have prayed and labored for the unborn to join us. I know you are there. I have broken bread with you at dinners for crisis pregnancy centers and right to life groups. I have marched with you to proclaim the sanctity of innocent life, and decry the laws that sanction its destruction. I have been uplifted by your faith, your perseverance, your love of God and His son. The forces of evil mean to lay final claim to a place supposed to be within the precincts of our God and Lord. Come what may, we must come forth now to occupy and hold it against them.

I will go to South Bend. I will step foot on the Notre Dame campus to lift up the standard that protects the life of the innocent children of this and every generation. I will do it all day and every day until, if it be God's will, shame and the love of Christ overcome the university administration's vain craving for iniquitous "honor". I will do it though it means I shall be housed every day in the prison house of lies and injustice that Obama, Jenkins and their minions now mean to construct for those who will never be still and silent in the face of their mockery of God and justice, their celebration of evil.

If this be trespass, then forgive us our trespasses and join us in trespassing until the South Bend jail is filled to overflowing with witnesses to truth; filled beyond capacity; filled until we break the most onerous shackles of all- the ones that bind the heart and mind to evil and our nation to the path of its moral and spiritual destruction.

The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two

In its opinion contending that homosexuals may have an equal right to marry, the Iowa Supreme court takes the position that the understanding of equal rights evolves. Rights are therefore artificial constructs that reflect changing societal norms. Even if this contention were true, it would not explain how, in a society based on the sovereignty of the people, the task of changing the laws to reflect that evolution falls to the judicial branch of government, which has no lawmaking power. Why is it rational to conclude that a handful of judges catering to the feelings of a small minority of the people reflect changed norms more accurately than the elected representatives of the people?

Of course, the court's opinion purports to respond using the argument that, with respect to the unalienable rights of their humanity, even a small minority of the people may claim protection against the unjust will of the majority. This correct reasoning was the basis for overturning laws that established racial discrimination. But the concept of unalienable human rights relies upon an understanding of right or justice promulgated by a permanent authority existing beyond human power or agreement, and therefore beyond changing societal norms. So the doctrine that rights are evolving artificial constructs, which the court cites to justify the homosexuals' equal right to marry, contradicts the doctrine of unalienable rights on which it relies to justify its rejection of the existing marriage laws properly enacted by the State legislature. The court's opinion treats unalienable rights as if they are merely conventional (that is, based on changeable human agreement), but then purports to defend them against existing law (which reflects the prevalent conventional opinion of the people of Iowa) as if they are not. In order properly to defend the claim that homosexuals have an unalienable right to marry equal to that of heterosexual couples, the court would have to show that they are in some fashion inextricably involved with the preservation of human existence or identity, understood without reference to conventional views. The Iowa court's opinion fails even to address this logical requirement. It therefore falls prey to absurd self-contradiction.

What the Iowa court fails to do with respect to artificially construed homosexual marriage rights can easily be done when we turn away from artificial fabrications to the simple facts of nature. The preservation of humanity depends upon procreation. Procreation cannot take place without the presence and participation of male and female elements of humanity. It is right to preserve humanity. Those who act with respect for this right have the right to do so. Society establishes the institution of marriage to acknowledge and codify its respect for this right and the subsidiary rights that flow from it (e.g., the authority of parents over their children, the nature and duration of the subordination of children to this authority, the obligations of parents toward their children, etc.).

Because the preservation of the species is self-evidently an aspect of preserving the existence and identity of all the individuals that comprise it, the right connected with procreation is an unalienable right. Any society that fails, in its institution of government, to respect this right, departs from the standard of justice that determines the purpose of that institution. ("To secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….") But since justice is the end or aim of civil society, such a society also violates the understanding on which civil society itself is based. Respect for justice compels the individuals thereby deprived of their right (i.e., their opportunity to do what is right) to disregard and resist this violation, and to continue in their right course of action. If force is used to impose it, the right of self-preservation requires that they resist, so that civil society gives way to war and conflict.

It turns out that, while speciously claiming to defend the fabricated rights of homosexual individuals the Iowa supreme court opinion violates the most fundamental right of society (civil peace secured by respect for unalienable right), as well as one of the most obvious rights of all individuals (the right to do what preserves humanity.) The judges camouflage this egregious and ultimately violent abandonment of right with a discussion that dwells on the incidental feelings and emotions of homosexuals while ignoring the disposition and inclinations of humanity in general. But in so doing, they casually perpetrate an atrocious violation of individual rights as well.

Every child conceived and born in the context of a homosexual "marriage" represents a biological parent cut off from the opportunity to do what is right by his or her offspring. The relation between parent and child is the natural paradigm of all belonging. On account of a fact that in no way depends on human power or agreement, the child belongs to the parent and the parent to the child. The fabrication of homosexual marriage casually deprives both parent and child of this natural belonging, perpetrating a criminal theft that strikes not only at individuals, but at the very concept of ownership (and therefore of property) for which their mutual belonging provides the natural pattern.

The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus represents an assault against the conceptual basis of the rights of property. If, on account of the bond derived from the production of life itself, there arises no unalienable right of belonging, what other form of labor or production can give rise to such a right? This means that the right of property must be regarded as purely conventional, subject to the imposition of whatever happens to be the prevalent force of opinion at the moment. But if individuals have no belongings beyond determination by this human force, what becomes of their claim to possess unalienable rights that that must be respected by human laws and governments?

In light of these reflections we realize that it is no accident that the definitive push to impose homosexual marriage takes place in the context of a general effort to overthrow the institutions of individual liberty, limited government and the private enterprise economy. The natural family is the conceptual and material basis for the possibility of a human community that respects individual belongings. In order to establish a thoroughly collectivist and socialist regime, it must be completely discarded and destroyed. It must be annihilated. The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus appears as part of the more general war against liberty that is now coming to a head. Once we realize this, we understand the inadequacy of the strategy and tactics employed until now by those who profess to defend the natural family against this fabrication. In the next posting I will discuss their shortcomings, and the remedy for them.