An Open Letter to Sr. Fran Ferder

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/vaticans-assessment-lcwr-about-fear-not-doctrine

This letter is in response to the article linked above.

—-

Sr. Fran,

My, my… angry?

This was an interesting paragraph:

“Psychologically healthy adults do not mandate obedience, forbid dialogue about subjects they do not wish discussed, or use oppressive tactics to gain control over others. Personally secure leaders don’t issue orders to other functioning adults, threatening punitive measures if they are not obeyed.“

As a Franciscan, how on earth do you reconcile this tripe with your own Franciscan Rule? St. Francis mandated Obedience. Heck, you even had to take a vow of one to become a Franciscan Sister! And what if you disobey the Rule? Punitive measures are employed, are they not? And did not St. Francis demand certain subjects just not be broached and should be walked away from, such as in cases of disobedience and gossip which is injurious to, and suspect of, the Holy See?

Even God Himself demands Obedience and has instituted punitive measures when we break with free will, which is properly applied in CHOOSING to obey God, and by default, the Holy See, particularly for a Franciscan: is this not the true definition of charity’s application and relationship to obedience, and poverty in spirit? Everything I’ve read of Franciscan tradition indicates it as so.

Come home, Sister, and let me, a male, learn from your obedience which is demanded of you by your Father Francis. If you won’t do this, please stop clogging the narrow path for those who wish only to follow God and the Church He has placed on earth for our benefit- a benefit which rests on obedience and punitive measures for forsaking Him. A punitive measure which we, in our own disobedience, demand of God, and so He gives us what we ask. God is love and love is tough sometimes. Especially when you’re not acting in a loving manner in which to accept it.

Please stop using your titles for applying credence to nothing more than an emotional rant devoid of the reality to which you’ve vowed yourself.

In Christ,
Jon Horton

“Sister” Joan Chittister: Snake In The Tree

This synopsis explores the presentation on 20 April 2012 at Shove Chapel, Colorado College, by Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. wherein she delivered a presentation titled, “God And The Evolutionary Mind: The God Who Beckons”. This event was presented by the James W. White Endowed Lectureship Fund, and supported by the Paul Sheffer Fund for Catholic Studies, Colorado College, and the Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado. The religious institution associated with the presentation was the First Congregational United Church of Christ, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Background:

On 20 April 2012, I acquired a copy of the bimonthly paper put out by the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission, “Active for Justice”, specifically the April/May 2012 edition. In the schedule of upcoming events, I saw that Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B., would be speaking that evening at the Shove Chapel, Colorado College, with the presentation beginning at 7PM.

Arriving at Shove Chapel, the building was packed with attendees including members from the Benet Hill Monastery.

The program given out upon entrance contained, in part, a brief biography of Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B., and stated that the presentation would, “focus on how to integrate one’s spirituality with peace and justice issues.”

Sister Joan was introduced and proceeded to engage in typical public speaking techniques of warming up the audience. She accomplished this through statements of false humility about herself being unworthy, incompetent, etc. She concluded this portion with a jocular story about Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen that, while in itself was objectively harmless, and indeed had been told in the past by respectable members of the Church, was absolutely intended to set the stage for her incoherent, and totally unorthodox, diatribe promoting feminism, New Age techniques, and the eschewing of Tradition and teaching authority of the Magisterium. The punch line of the joke is that Abp. Sheen was asking the way to town hall to give a presentation on how to get to heaven and was met with the reply, “You don’t even know how to get to town hall!” It cannot be denied that, in the context of her audience, Sister Joan knew exactly what her joke was to accomplish. Indeed, the raucous laughter carried with it a tone of modern malice toward the great defenders of Holy Mother Church and all things traditionally Catholic.

Delving into the meat of the presentation, Sister Joan made it known that scientists at the highest level have concluded Darwinian Evolution as fact, and proceeded to poorly weave that claim of unobservable processes into the excuse for the evolution of the human mind, as it relates to experiential spirituality and reduction of the abstract toward its purported efficacious end. This end was never clearly defined, and at no time did Sister Joan relate this goal to the message of the Gospel, the Beatific Vision, etc. In this regard, Sister Joan implored the audience to, “seek God in reality, not myth, magic, etc.” She never fully expounded on this from the point of view one would expect of a woman with her vocation and level of education, and I can only be left to surmise the direction each audience member ran with that oddly-worded phrase.

Sister Joan proceeded to then give a brief exposition on the perception, and nature, of God and how, through her experience, she has come to conclude that, “our idea of God is the measure of our spiritual maturity.” She fleshed this out with a litany of examples including:

*Believers in a God of wrath will become wrathful to others.
*Believers in a God of indifference will become indifferent to others, and despair when others are indifferent to them.
*Etc.

Sister Joan, in backing up this idea of hers, stated that, “the God you know now is the mystery no one wants.” This was an incomplete statement on its own, in terms of what she was previously expounding on, as the basis for such a statement was the pigeon-holing of individual belief in, and understanding of, God is what leads to seeking and finding new understanding of God. Having failed to define the acceptable level at which one can claim at least a valid, if incomplete, understanding of God, again, I can only imagine the direction in which individual attendees took this statement. Thinking back to Colossians 1:26-27, ” 26 The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints, 27 To whom God would make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ, in you the hope of glory.“, I am further curious about the object and definition of this “mystery no one wants” as stated by Sister Joan. Was this a sly slight at Christ on her part?

The presentation continued through a vast array of quotes from various authors, thinkers, and theologians. These quotes aimed to build the case that the human understanding of God, and the Church’s ability to convey that understanding, is woefully lacking and can be better expounded on through: (subjective) experience, (subjective) reality, other systems of various focus and the resultant exchange of ideas between people with no foundational truth but self-truth.

While employing Sacred Scripture to build the case of the femaleness of God, Sister Joan, with a mocking tone, stated, “God, the mighty male…” and took a timed sip of water while waiting for the laughter of the audience to die down. She attempted to prove this femaleness of God by the out of context reference to literary devices within Sacred Scripture that are meant to provide imagery for the listener/reader in terms of how God will protect what is His as a mother would protect what is hers. Examples not specific to the presentation include, but are not limited to: Hosea 13:8, Deuteronomy 32:11-12, Psalm 130:2; and, Isaiah 49:15, 66:13. I was unable to write down the verses Sister Joan actually quoted, as she was moving through very fast, and provide the preceding examples to serve only as a reference to the concept she employed. All references make use of the Douay-Rheims. Sister Joan conveniently forgot to mention the ever-so-male Jesus Christ, Our Lord, The Word made flesh, made similar statements as recorded in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 for the purpose of relatable imagery which spans time, culture, and all levels of life experience. The reduction of God to gender, whilst ignoring the context of Sacred Scripture in building the foundation of her argument, was hampered by the fact that she never addressed the more pressing question of masculinity versus femininity and chose, instead, to focus entirely on gender which, outside the hypostatic union of Our Lord, is inapplicable.

In concluding her presentation, and in keeping with her feminist theme, she attempted to absolve the audience of its responsibility to God, in the perfection the Father demands, by stating, in part, “God our Mother loves us for trying”, “your purpose is goodness in life, the good life” (she never clarified her intended definition of goodness nor what defines a “good life”), and “forget unnecessary footnotes”- whatever that might actually mean. I took it to infer that the “footnotes” meant the doctrine and dogma in the possession of Holy Mother Church, as the tone of the presentation had an undercurrent of hostility toward the same.

——-

Following the presentation there was a brief Q&A session. The first question dealt with the recent Vatican condemnation of certain practices of the Leadership Council of Women Religious. Sister Joan’s prefatory response was, “I don’t know how you rebuild a group that hasn’t done anything wrong.” She then referenced the Vatican II Council’s appeal to Religious to get out into the people and renew their community to its charism, as an excuse for the speakers the LCWR bring in, the studies they conduct, etc. She appealed to emotion by stating that when a family member is dying, a Sister is there; when someone is homeless, a Sister is there, etc. In short, she blatantly disagreed with the Vatican and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing or need of improvement on the part of the LCWR, while defending the indefensible actions and beliefs of the LCWR.

The second question was more New Age as it related to “an upcoming global paradigm shift in consciousness”. The questioner was attempting to understand how Sister Joan integrates her presentation and beliefs with the evolution of the human mind and its spiritual awareness, and how to reconcile currently held “truth” with whatever “truth” there might exist in the future. Part of her lengthy response included the idea that we are “not supposed to be perfect, we’re supposed to grow.”

——

Encapsulating the message Sister Joan presented, I can only conclude the following understanding that anyone in attendance would have received at a cursory level:

*The God you believe in is the person you’ll be; believe in the God you want, as that character profile will affect your own desire of self-actualization.

*There is no true knowledge but what is acceptable to you, as it relates to spirituality.

*Man, in seeking God, can define God. This is totally at odds with her initial argument that the definition man applies to God is lacking and impossible to lend itself in achieving true understanding of God, as man will always be deficient in achieving this goal. That is to say, whatever aspects are desirable, apply to God, even those desirable aspects which are at odds with immutable Catholic teaching and of a desire which is disordered..

*Tradition is bad, Catholicism is a pick-and-choose buffet, and one does not need to assent to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church as anything but a vehicle to find one’s own truth, no matter how that “truth” might conflict with any or all Catholic doctrine.

——-

The entirety of the presentation was rife with jumping back and forth and there was no real, clear goal as to what the audience was supposed to take from the presentation. Much of the philosophy employed was entirely void of logic, and the lack of explanation on key words and phrases left one very unsure as to the catholicity of anything she said. Sadly, there was not a single attempt at pointing the listener in the direction of the Church on their journey:

*Relativism was front and center, flanked by feminism, postmodernism, and Universalist/New Age spirituality.

*The driving force of the presentation’s topic and direction seemed largely fueled by the work of Drs. William Coulson and Carl Rogers in their experiments with employing humanistic-psychology in various Religious communities in the 1960′s, utilizing a method they coined “therapy for normals”, or TFN. The foundation of Rogers’ and Coulson’s work was inner reflection for one’s own personal truth, not Truth, and certainly not the fulness found in Holy Mother Church. This method has worked its way into the present New Age movement and associated psychological theories, particularly as they relate to understanding progressive spirituality.

*The message was totally in conflict with Dei Verbum #’s 2:

“… By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fulness of all revelation.“

*3:

“God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20).”

*Re: Dei Verbum #3: While I realize on the surface this backs up Sister Joan’s demand to find God in reality, it must be noted that in the course of the presentation she repeatedly used the word “create” in regard to human works, when, indeed, humans can create nothing in such a context as the realities created by God, for only God can create. This issue of misusing language, as it can be injurious to proper catechesis, is covered in Catechesi Tradendae #59. This is directly segued from #58, which also applies directly to this presentation.

6:

“Through Divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. That is to say, He chose to share with them those divine treasures which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind. … His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race.”

*Implicitly rejected the ability of the Church to unequivocally, and solely, through the infallibility of the Holy Father, define what is needed for Salvation and how this relates to the common good. Cf. Pacem In Terris #’s 57, 58,59, and Diuturnum, as they relate to the designed goal of the common good, which undoubtedly is a crucial focus of true Social Justice issues; and, related authority and origin of civil power as an agent of enforcement in meeting that goal.
——-
In her defense, for what it’s worth, she did disagree with the idea of Atheism.

It cannot be denied that Sister Joan Chittister is bearing, and encouraging the consumption of, a type of fruit in her work. The question is, if one eats of it, shall they surely die, or shall they be as Gods, knowing good and evil?

Jon B. Horton
24 April 2012

Fire On The Mountain: Run, Boys, Run!

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13336

Father John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, called the administration’s announcement “a welcome step toward recognizing the freedom of religious institutions to abide by the principles that define their respective missions. We applaud the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties.”

Typical Notre Dame and modern Catholic institutional mentality (same mentality of women who go for the bad boy and then get surprised when he does bad things, or men who meet a woman of loose morals and expect fidelity): dance with the devil and think you won’t get hoof marks on your penny loafers; you’ll change him, he’ll be better next time, he actually cares, etc. YEAH RIGHT!

When are these people going to realize that Obama supported, vehemently so as a Senator, infanticide. When are these people going to realize that Obama supports, vehemently so, governmental intrusion into the affairs of the Church? When are these people going to realize that they cannot out-fiddle the devil, and no golden fiddle awaits them as a prize of victory?

” … and the devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said, ‘Fr. let me tell ya what…’ … and the Priest said ‘my name’s John Jenkins, and it might be a sin’ … “

China, iPhones, and You

So this article wants you to be bummed that your iPhone and computer were made by the third highest wage earners in Asia. Yeah, all of Asia, and the commies have the third highest wage by utilizing their cheap labor for foreign companies, thus preventing starvation/unemployment or forced work on a rice farm owned by the state. Cry me a river.

All you people crying about China probably, well, actually you are, approaching this from a perspective of blind emotionalism, which is what the article wants. God forbid you should actually just think about the situation in context.

… since the introduction of the revised labor law in 2008, China’s workers are now amongst some of the best paid in Asia.

The survey, conducted in-house, took samples of minimum wage levels from each of China’s provinces and 40 cities, and based its figures on the mean average. China’s minimum wage varies both on a provincial and an urban basis. This was then compared with similar data from other Asian countries. The results look like this:

(source: http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2011/01/19/china-near-top-of-the-list-for-wage-overheads-in-emerging-asia.html)

And it ain’t just Apple:

Foxconn, which makes electronic components for Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, doubled assembly-line workers’ pay amid criticism of factory conditions and a spate of employee suicides.

(source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-06-17-chinalabor17_ST_N.htm)

Being comfortably dumb and numb Americans, it’s easy to get outraged over a man or woman being able to provide their family food/shelter via a process and job which is, to our standards, well below acceptable. Well, get off your high horse, our grandparents did the same.

If you want to improve China, remove the blight of Maoist/somehow-perverted-capitalist policy from its soil. Introduce the Church in more than a state controlled setting or some random basement. The Chinese are in the situation they arebecause of totalitarian implementation of failed-from-the-start liberal economic/social policy which is atheistic and redundantly moronic, the same processes which liberals seek to implement here.

News flash: big government + emotional appeals forsaking reason + implementing forced following of bad policy = bad situations like China.

*typed from my Apple computer, will get updates on my Apple iPhone.

St. Polycarp: Bishop and Martyr

Today, 26 January, is the Feast of St. Polycarp who was both a Bishop and a Martyr. For the non-Latin Mass types (basically the majority of Catholics :-/ ), it’s 23 February, but I attend the Tridentine/Latin Mass aka the Extraordinary Form and today’s the day!

St. Polycarp was also a student of St. John the Apostle, thus having been instructed in the faith by Jesus’ most beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel according to St. John, epistles 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, and The Apocalypse, or, “Revelation”. In other words, St. Polycarp was very, very, verrrrrrry well catechized.

He was martyred for refusing to burn incense in an act of worship of the Caesar. According to accounts I’ve read, St. Polycarp was well liked by the town in general. The force in charge of carrying out the execution begged and pleaded St. Polycarp to just burn a little incense and be done with it so they didn’t have to kill him. In other words, just blaspheme Jesus and save your own skin P-Diddy. To that he replied, “For 86 years I have been His servant and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?”. Ya catch that?

When facing fire as the way he will die, and to get out of it he only has to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar in an act of worship, not even truly worshiping Caesar, just appearing to, St. Polycarp chose death.

Not only did he choose death, he counted himself blessed to be a martyr. To have his final earthly witness (or testimony if you will) be his death. That’s actually what martyr means, “witness”. What mohammedanism has done with the term and concept is unfortunate thievery/bastardization, but what else would you expect from the brainchild of Satan?

And so, upon his final refusal to engage in blasphemy to save his own skin, St. Polycarp was put to the stake and the fire was lit. But oh noes! He wasn’t burning! Not burning at all. Let me threepeat this: St. Polycarp would not burn. With witnesses. Explain that or shut up and consider that this whole Jesus “thing”, well, might be more than a “thing”. It might be absolutely the realest, most real, ain’t nothing fake or funny about it real thing that exists.

So after St. Polycarp was, through the power of God, blowing people’s minds by NOT BURNING IN A FIRE, they stabbed him to death instead. Yeah, I know right?

At that point, and this may just be me, but if I’d been one of the ones persecuting the Bishop, I’d have converted on the spot. Show me a guy who isn’t being burned by fire (without a special suit on, smart ass), and I’ll show you a guy I’m gonna think twice, thrice, and 1 below their sum about stabbing.

Now, you may think that St. Polycarp was a sweet old man and sure, given his age and occupation, he probably was. But St. Polycarp would likely recoil in horror at the effeminate wrist-flicking ecumenism that goes on in some circles in the Catholic Church. Marcion? St. Polycarp called him the son of Satan. No wimps in the early Church ladies and gentlemen, and no kowtowing-flowery-nonsense language either. Simple, to the point, and as real as it gets.

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians in the Byzantine empire chose to wimp out and be overrun by mohammedan forces (hint: libtards, that’s actually what the first Crusade was about). The churches where St. Polycarp was a Bishop, in Smyrna, are now either destroyed or mosques. Smyrna is not even Smyrna anymore. It’s now known as Izmir, Turkey. There is a “Saint Polycarp Church” there, but it was built in A.D. 1625

So Christians, man up, and remember for whatever time you have been a servant of Jesus Christ, He has done you no wrong; please, I beg you, don’t blaspheme our King who has saved us. Mmkay?

O GOD, Who dost gladden us by the annual feast of Blessed Polycarp, Thy Martyr and Bishop: mercifully grant that we, who celebrate his heavenly birthday, may also rejoice in his protection. Through our Lord.

- Collect, Sacerdotes Dei of a Martyr Bishop, 1962 Missal.

Political Diabetes

Josh Green over at The Atlantic wrote some junior high style hit piece on Santorum because of a high school year book photo FROM 1976! He also included a slideshow of all the GOP field, including people not even in the running (Since when is Palin a candidate so far this election cycle?). It’s practically an accepted fact that no one looks good or cool or remotely in touch in their yearbook photos. Especially anything from the 70′s.

Here’s the thing, yes, the photo is funny. ALL yearbook photos look absolutely out of touch, hilarious, ripe for mockery, and ridiculous 36 years later. Here’s the other thing:

WHERE ARE OBAMA’S elementary, middle school, and high school yearbook photos? What about transcripts for those grades? What about college? HMMMMM!? OK, yes, the yearbook photos are out there from those earlier days, now what about the transcripts? If, as Newsweek implied a few days ago, Obama is such the political genius, I want to know what track record he has had to be molded into said genius. I want to know who the guy actually is and where he came from. I want to know who the SOB IS.

Now, I’m really not defending Santorum et al. I am merely pointing out the obvious:

Obama is a friggin’ Manchurian Candidate par excellence, in accordance with the requirements of such a position. Between the birth certificate being exposed within hours of release, SSN issues that make your dog cock his head in bewilderment, transcripts which would show whether or not Obama applied via foreign aid as a *foreign student*, etc- something stinks, and it’s not the decomposing economy.

Then again, what do I know? I’m just a dumb Christian who believes he’s watching the country he loves eat itself to death while the people screaming about dieting force feed the masses metaphorical Twinkies and extra-sugar coca-cola.

Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison.

Why I’m Not Excited About Voting

I addressed this via sparse words with pictures in: All You People Excited About Voting

Here are my reasons I am not excited:

Even inaction is action, if purposeful.

Romney will get the nomination, but he won’t get my vote in the primary or general. The primary, if I vote, will see a vote specifically to vote against Romney. This is more directed as a giant “screw you” to both Romney and the GOP at large. If Romney gets the GOP nomination (which he will) I won’t vote because I don’t trust: Mormons, slimy politicians, people from Massachusetts (particularly those who kowtow to the Kennedy legacy in practice), those who say anything about gun control in a positive manner, and socialized health care advocates. I especially do not like slimy Mormon politicians from Massachusetts who are gun control advocates and put into place a health care law which is bankrupting the state and served as a model for the national program (which is illegal any way you slice it).

Romney bowed out to let old Johnny McCain have “his” turn last time, so, it’s Mitt-the-man-who’s-full-of-*rhymes with Mitt*’s turn this go around.

Ron Paul is insane on certain aspects and it totally takes away his legitimacy on issues he is good on.

Gingrich is a consummate politician, which is actually an insult.

Santorum? No way he would get elected.

It’s Romney, and it’s been Romney, and I think the entire GOP should be ashamed of itself for that. The man is not a conservative until election cycles.

I view America, in many ways, as a concept and ever decreasing possibility. We tend to have a nationally ingrained mindset of picking and choosing aphorisms and often out of context quotes, and through these, develop ideology which means well but is ultimately damaging; the idea of voting just to “vote” is absurd and totally in violation of both the spirit of voting, and the demands of a sovereign citizen to not participate in illegal processes thus giving them credence as legal and legitimate. For there even to be an option of voting against Obama (Soetoro, Bounel? Which is it?) means the system has utterly failed since at least sometime around, oh, the time he set foot on U.S. soil.

As with most failures, it was a chain reaction culminating in the horrible cataclysm of even making it on the DNC’s ballot. Since then, America has been slowly both dumbing down and smartening up regarding this nauseating reality. The man simply was not vetted and approved in accordance with the codified law set in place. He was illegally pushed through as a dumb-witted plant who speaks well (when tele-prompters are in use) and says nothing. He finally realized his lifelong selfish dream: attempt to destroy America while feeling accepted and vindicating daddy, while simultaneously flaunting his grandmother’s moot race and failing to mention she was also a frigging communist. His entire history of acquaintances, friends, and mentors have been either outright Marxists or subscribers to the Homohammed kool-aid: the, affirmative action, anti-Christian, proto-Marxist, sexually perverse, bestiality and pedophilia stained precursor to what we see America and the entire Judeo-Christian West becoming, Europe is all but fallen to this despicable entity. We are poisoning the world with this crap, both in practice domestically and kowtowing to their actions overseas.

We are supposed to be big boy on the block, and as much as I’d love a workable version of an isolationist policy, it’s absolutely untenable. That means we have to be strong globally. Morality must be the basis for this, a morality Romney doesn’t have, and Obama likely never did- even before he was molded into a little Manchurian Candidate. If we gotta defend this, “This We’ll Defend”, but we have dug our own grave, tied our own hands, and are on the way of pulling the trigger with our toes every single second we legitimize the man even being on the ballot to begin with. These people do it in openness, just as mohammedanism does it in openness in their areas. It is Satanic. When he can’t trick ya one way, he’ll get ya the opposite way. We are very polar minded, ergo our decrepit and abused two party system: which has deteriorated to a point that repair is all but impossible.

We must make some very hard sacrifice, or be prepared to make harder sacrifice. We won’t choose the lesser of the two. It’s in our rebellious nature. Some things are learned the hard way. Most things in fact. There is even religious credence being given to the murder of our next generation. And to generations which are. In Marxism, which is bearing down on us like a freight train, these things are given credence through backwards and immoral rhetoric disguised as charity, and glaringly false to all but the willingly ignorant, or morally and/or mentally deficient, and/or depraved. In mohammedanism, much of the same, not surprisingly.

To submit to the choice of submission or defilement masquerading as pure, and either way pay taxes which go towards immoral and anti-Christian activity, is the choice given in both mohammedanism and Marxism.

Pretend it’s not true if you want to, but we have all but been overrun. I will not surrender and submit to it by giving credence to it. I will not vote in anything but local or state elections until that is proven utterly failed as well, and my only federal voting activity will be in primaries, if at all. I will not sit back and keep quiet for fear of being called a bigot, lunatic, or any other manner of false and inapplicable epithets.

It is more than my right as a sovereign citizen of the United States, it is, in fact, my duty.

A vote with one choice is not a vote.

—–

Here is it in another form:

Imagine a world where all fathers get to approve the daughter’s future husband. Via that process is a set of criteria to which both the father and daughter agreed. Daughter meets two potential candidates and brings them both home. One doesn’t even meet the criteria. The other meets the criteria, but is not meeting the father’s personal standard and he would not give his approval otherwise. The daughter says “but dad! make a choice!”. What choice? Daughter says she will marry one of them regardless. Well, at that point, the system in place for the father’s approval has just been shat on and destroyed.

System failure = no choice in the spirit of the choice. Yes, technically there’s a choice. But there is a third option: don’t vote, or vote for a third party candidate.

As a registered Republican, I have the choice the vote democrat if I wanted ( I won’t), third party ( I would if the candidate was good and Obama wasn’t on the ballot), the republican nominee, or not at all.

I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not allow my family to infiltrated by someone I despise.

If no vote is a vote for Obama, may my “daughter” get the piece of crap “husband” she obviously deserves because she obviously wasn’t providing a choice dependent on the criteria to begin with.

Not Romney: