Skip to comments.Sisolak, NV Democrats declare war on Catholic Church-supported ministry
Posted on 07/09/2018 11:03:09 AM PDT by VegasVictor
Politics is a dirty business, but politicians usually avoid attacking charities supported by their own church. Not Steve Sisolak.
Sisolak, a Democrat, has talked numerous times about his faith and is reportedly a devout Catholic who goes to Mass every day.
Last week, Nevada Democrats put out a pro-abortion screed against Adam Laxalt, Sisolaks Republican gubernatorial opponent. It viciously attacked First Choice Pregnancy Services, a crisis pregnancy center. Crisis pregnancy centers offer women free pregnancy-related services, such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and counseling to help expectant moms choose life.
Nevada Democrats labeled First Choice a fake clinic that coerces women who test positive for pregnancy to get an ultrasound right then and there. Holding a woman against her will and forcing her to get a medical procedure is a serious charge, and in this case, its pure slander. For evidence, the Democrats link to the First Choice website where it says workers will schedule a woman for a free ultrasound if she is pregnant. Providing something for free isnt equivalent to forcing someone to do something, even when youre writing political hyperbole.
Offering free services gets expensive. Thats where the Catholic Church comes in.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Goes to Mass every day and does what?
I’m having a VERY DIFFICULT time understanding why prominent “pro-choice” Catholics are not summarily excommunicated FRom the church?
Unless the church has shifted its official position, abortion is still a big no-no, is it not?
Anybody out there have the same difficulty?
I think I know, but I’d be embarrassed to put it in print.
“...women who test positive for pregnancy”
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free.
In America, in the Year 1776, a genius group of freedom loving individuals declared a set of principles by which, if accepted, a society of like-minded individuals could enjoy "the pursuit of happiness."
Eleven years later, they "constituted" a form of self-government to assure that the goals of their Constitution's Preamble were to become reality for the nation.
The Preamble began with the words,
We, the People. . . .
The goal, of course, was the expansion, or enlargement, of liberty for individuals in the society--not the enlargement of government!
Perhaps Donald Trump's greatest achievement to this point can be described as one man's effort to "expand liberty" for individuals and to "contract government power," thereby allowing just a little individual freedom to flourish as it did in America both prior to 1776 and thereafter.
By the way, has anyone here read Burke's Speech on Conciliation. . . . lately? If not, please read his description of how the "spirit of liberty" among the colonists, even before 1776, had resulted in the American colonies literally "feeding" the Old World!
The word, "liberty" freedom should, once again, become the watchword for American citizens.
In fact, according to Canon Law, anybody who gives material cooperation to an abortion, a well as the person actually obtaining it, is excommunicated latae sentenciae AND is to be denied Holy Communion by whoever is distributing it (bishop, priest, deacon, EM or whoever), a ruling which was made perfectly clear by the equivalent of the Vatican Supreme Court, and which has never been rescinded.
That's the problem. Catholic doctrine ignored by Catholic clerics. Resulting in the most hellacious things happening this side of hell itself: murder and Eucharistic sacrilege.
Write your bishop. Or camp out at his front door.
If that be the case, IMHO the church should expand rules of excommunication to include ALL Catholics who speak and write contrary to church dogma!
Thanks for the clarification.
I’m not a Catholic, so a Protestant writing to a Catholic Bishop probably would produce zero results.
There are many prominent Catholics who openly mock the church’s position in some matters, and it bothers me that the church seems to take no notice of it.
Maybe some bishops don't understand that there are people out here that really want Catholics to be Catholic-- and the leadership should teach, defend, and demand the full integrity of the Truth.
The moral law is eternal, and is important to everyone and not just to Catholics. The most obvious is the Right to Life, the absolute commandment to not commit murder (including abortion). Plus wwe should defend the Pregnancy Care centers, which protect both endangered unborns, and their troubled mothers.
What use are bishops who let it all slide, silently tolerating pro-abort "Catholic" politicos, for instance?? Or worse, of course, bishops who sure look like they're siding with the Enemy?
Seriously. Write that letter. Tell us if you get a response.
He might be touched by an appeal from somebody like you, taxman. And me (I'm preaching to myself.)
You can contact them right now online (I will) at this site which has a simple contact feature:
Or here's the mailing address, if you like:
Bishop George Leo Thomas
336 Cathedral Way
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109-0716
Phone: (702) 735-3500
You may think, "Forget it, it's not my problem." No, it's everybody's problem. This Democrat abortion enthusiast, Sisolak, nominally a Catholic, is damaging THE PUBLIC GOOD by attacking the good guys at"First Choices Pregnancy Services."
WE need for his bishop to --- ahem --- explain a few things to him. >_<
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.