Thursday, November 12, 2009

Health Care Reform: Other Ignored Dangers

I think the fact that the pro-life amendment passed is great, but how come we as Catholics are not asking other important questions. If the reform is about basic care and ensuring that care conforms to the true nature of human good we should also make sure that it does not cover:

1. Contraceptives
2. "Sex-change" operations
3. Same-sex "marriage" partners
4. Tube-ties, etc.
5. Invitro-Fertilization
6. Surrogacy

I am sure there are other immoral medical procedures, but I do not have the time to think of them right now. The abortion ban is great (though it will probably be eliminated in conference) but there are many other intrinsic evils that do not count as health care that we should not be paying for in the name of helping the poor and middle class have more affordable health care.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Accepting the Obama/Kmiec Abortion Argument is Contrary to Caritas in veritate

Doug Kmiec stated that he accepted Obama's personal rejection of abortion and rethought his pro-life stance because of Obama's argument that as much as he was personally opposed to abortion he could not impose his religious beliefs on people who had a religious belief that allows for abortion.

This was further reflected in the pluralistic "ideal" proposed by Kmiec in his 2008 October editorial in the Los Angeles Times stating that in a pluralistic society like America we must accept the legal "space" that allows for abortion to accommodate the diversity of religious belief on the subject.

But, Pope Benedict XVI, in Caritas in veritate, reminds us that accommodation of all religious belief is just as bad as the intolerant persecution of religious practice which is in conformity with the common good: "There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. " CV Paragraph 55. In other words, the philosophy of radical personal autonomy, which of course includes the right to abortion.

We should not give those who espouse this belief, the right to act on it. We have the power to prevent this belief from being practiced and must due so: "Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good." CV Paragraph 55.

In other words, Obama's and Kmiec's admitted lack of discernment regarding the religious belief of others that allows them to kill babies, is not a commendable and democratic act, but an abdication of responsibility that thwarts true human development and is in fact contemptible.

Christians cannot and should not waffle on abortion. Murder is wrong, we know it and it is wrong to let others hide behind irrational religious belief to practice their crimes. We do not let Islamic terrorists do it, we should not let pro-abortion/pro-choice people do it.

Full Quote from CV:

"Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism[132]by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.
For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”[134], contains this very criterion within itself." Paragraph 55

Two Interesting Tidbits from Caritas in veritate

Improvement of constitutional governments should not rely on government expansion: "The State does not need to have identical characteristics everywhere: the support aimed at strengthening weak constitutional systems can easily be accompanied by the development of other political players, of a cultural, social, territorial or religious nature, alongside the State." Paragraph 41.

And, although advocating for religious freedom in general, not all religions need to have the same freedom, because my friends some religions are not just wrong but BAD and governments can make the distinction (side note, those lame "coexist" bumper stickers are impliedly condemned, take that syncretism!):

"The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism[132] by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.
For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”[134], contains this very criterion within itself." Paragraph 55

Monday, August 31, 2009

Kmiec Speaks On Role of Church in America

Doug Kmiec is at it again. The debate on conscience protection is from April 2009 but has some interesting insights into the new thinking of Doug Kmiec.

Much of what he offers borders on a mistake in thinking that he pointed out in his Constitutional Law book. In the book Kmiec asks "Democracy, means or an end" (not exact quote but close enough). He used to answer the question "means" but now he has done a complete 180 and finds that democracy is actually the end. Amazingly, he states that democracy is no longer the favored means of achieving the good, it is the preferred method for determining the good:

"Unfortunately, in this temporal exile of ours, the fourth proposition is also true: the good is always disputed, and some mechanism in a pluralistic society is needed to resolve the differences in the conception of the good.
The fifth proposition, in America we decide in most cases to depend upon reasoned argument, persuasion, and ultimately democratic choice, to determine the good."

The fifth proposition is the most troublesome. Both from a Catholic and an American perspective. Here in America we have begun to define the good by democratic choice, especially individuals who label themselves liberals; but, this is not the American tradition.

In America, we hold the good of man and the rights and duties he must exercise to achieve this good to be "self-evident," i.e. not up for discussion, dialogue or democratic compromise. The right to life, being the first listed in the Declaration of Independence.

To argue that the very concept of the good can be disputed and chosen by a electoral vote, is to concede that we live in a tyranny, not of a monarch but of a mob. A mob without restraint, that has the power to say that good is evil and evil is good, is not the democratic ideal as Americans or our Founders understood it. It is these very two different conceptions of "democracy" that allowed thinkers like Edmund Burke to support our revolution and despise the French. The French revolution was the triumph of the mob, our revolution was the triumph, at least in the real of ideals, of government built on the non-negotiable Truth about man.

Turning now to the problems presented by Kmiec's statement from the Catholic perspective. Kmiec first starts by giving quick recognition of Church teaching, but then goes on to weaken its effect:

"Now, here is where the difficulty comes in. The church I love, the faith of my fathers and grandfathers, the American Catholic Church, has in modern times often chosen not to accept the democratic outcome as the conclusion to be guided by. Now, in some ways this is unproblematic, and one can find constitutional scholars across the land who dissent from various propositions when the Supreme Court of the United States, for example, undertakes to do something — like Roe v. Wade from my perspective — that is usurping of the legislature authority
and structure provided for in the Constitution. So the Church, when it echoes those arguments, is not particularly controversial.

But the Church makes a broader claim than that. It is a claim I am quite fond of, but it has great difficulty to it in terms of application. That is that democratic outcome can never trump the truth, that, as John Paul reminded us in Veritatus Splendor, a democracy not
well aimed with the truth of the human person in mind is very well on the track toward totalitarianism. The problem is that truth claims, like other claims of the good, are always disputed.

Then we come to really difficult times in our current Church circumstance, and that is some of our leaders guide us internally by intimidation and sacramental denial, or the threat of sacramental denial, and by practices of shunning, most recently Professor Glendon. She is the shunner, Notre Dame is the shunnee, in case you haven’t been following the stories.

. . .

So my eighth question and proposition is: How well situated is a church that proceeds in this fashion to ask for an exemption from generally applicable laws that we ask others to abide by? I would suggest that it tends to weaken its position in terms of asking for that exemption, and that in itself presents its own problems.

. . .

With respect to institutional claims for conscience exemption, I suggest that there should be a presumption against giving those, largely because they are anti-democratic. By contrast, in terms of individual claims of conscience, I suggest the law should be highly sensitive to those, for among other reasons, as I have been told over and over again because of my sin of “Obama meisting,” that I have a lot to answer for with St. Peter and for whom he works, and some metaphysical consequences of individually engaging in intrinsic evil are more profound for the individual than for the institution, which may or may not continue into eternity. The law should be particularly sensitive about it."

In other words, Kmiec thinks it anti-democratic for the Church to refuse to prostitute Herself to participate in the evil aspects of programs put forward by politicians who want to turn the Church from an independent entity to an arm of federal and state government public policy. Moreover, when Her pastors, our shepherds, the Bishops, shepherd us or our fathers, the priests, chastise us, who are their children, it is "intimidation" and "sacramental denial." This sounds like a teenager who is grumpy with his parents for threatening to punish them for staying beyond curfew. It is an act of mercy, not intimidation, to chastise the sinner, just read your Baltimore Catechism Professor Kmiec.

Finally, Kmiec (beyond advocating for the elimination of marriage and treating homosexual pairs and marriages equally in law and naming them all "quarks" as a model for religious freedom), states amazingly that:

"This notion of creating an ideal world through law is a forfeiture of the faith and the power of the faith. It is directly contrary, it seems to me, to Thomas’s teaching, to the Thomastic teaching about not seeing to enact every virtue or prohibit every vice. The human condition is just simply not capable of that and it is more variegated than that.

But it doesn’t mean you give up on the transformation of the culture. It just means you don’t expect the Supreme Court of the United States to be the chief catechist. You expect yourself to in fact embrace the Scripture and the Catechism, and through homiletics and through good works and your own personal witness and what happens in that parish community. That’s where the ideal world gets constructed."

Pretty ironic since Kmiec addressed the criticism of Obama by Cardinal Stafford by informing him that the cultural change the Cardinal had worked for his whole life in Christ would come to pass upon the inauguration of Obama, as President of the United States, a political office held by a non-Catholic!

Just imagine Kmiec sharing this point of view of the role of Church and the political State with the people of Malta who have shown an ability to engage in democracy and upholding the truth about the human person.


Kmiec also mistakenly implies that Humane Vitae's teaching is only applicable to Catholics rather than a teaching based on natural law and morality: "In terms of the conveyance of the significance of marriage and these other teachings on contraception, you don’t need to stop the coverage of insurance for contraception for people who have no moral objection to it in order to convey to Catholics the significance of Humanae Vitae. Now, you are going to need a lot of help conveying the significance of Humanae Vitae, and people have been working on it for a long time. But you are not going to get help from this passage of the law." Humane Vitae must be accepted by Catholics, but as a truth applicable to all mankind, we Catholics need to convey its significance to all peoples.

The transcript of the conference at Fordham re conscience protection is available here:

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Catholic Health Association Against "Caritas in Veritate"

I highly recommend that you watch or listen to the Raymond Arroyo, The World Over, interview/debate with Sr. Carol Keehan president of the Catholic Health Association (CHA). The CHA has come under fire for demanding health care reform "now." Sr. Keehan clearly believes that it is the role of the federal government to pay for the majority of health care in this country.

In response to Sr. Keehan's almost unreserved support for government financed health care Mr. Arroyo asked her what would prevent the "reformed" American health care system from resembling the rationed care in Canada and Britain that abuses seniors and denies essential care to the very sick. Her response was shocking and let the mask slip on the CHA agenda: "The political reason I think it won't happen here is 'cause it [the elderly] is the largest voting block."

This is in direct conflict with the Pope's current encyclical which expressly rejects a social order based on benefiting those with the most political power:

"Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 5.

"In promoting development, the Christian faith does not rely on privilege or positions of power, nor even on the merits of Christians (even though these existed and continue to exist alongside their natural limitations)[44], but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to integral human development must be directed." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 18

In her statement, Sister Keehan belies her statements of wanting to promote the Catholic conception of charity and social justice. Her statements reveal her willingness to implement a system that depends and promotes the interests of the politically powerful, which is probably why the CHA is so comfortable spending so much money lobbying Congress. It is an admission that the CHA push for health care reform is a push for the politicization of health care.

Additionally, the idea that the federal government, which already makes up 33% of the health care industry needs to become a larger provider of health care runs dangerously close to promoting the concentration of power warned against by the Pope:

"When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research." Caritas in veritate at Paragraph 71.

We need to fight this consolidation of power not promote it.

Finally, the most disturbing line of the interview belongs also to Sr. Keehan: "We have to be in the mainstream."

No Sister, we have to be in Christ.

P.S. After listening to the interview, did anyone appreciate her justification of conceding 150 billion dollars of Catholic Hospital Association money to the government by saying that the money is going to the "Medicare Trust Fund," which has a 60 trillion dollar unfunded liability, that would be paid back in 2013? It was so ridiculous I laughed out loud.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

E-Mail I sent to the the USCCB Catholic Campaign for Human Development

To Whom it May Concern,

I am growing very concerned with the partisan bent of the USCCB, which has come to the surface with respect to the current debate on "health care reform."

"Health care reform now" is a message in line with the current Obama administration and the Democrat Party controlled Congress. It is advocating a plan that promotes rationing, abortion and euthanasia. I'm sure the USCCB, the CHA, St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Charities USA do not intend to directly sponsor these aspects of the bills being proposed but such irresponsible action alerts lack political prudence and create a situation which will rush the country into making bad and hasty decisions.

The Democrat Party which is leading this effort, as a matter of formal party policy and platform, believes in the paying for abortion, on demand: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Democrat Party Platform 2008 at 50.

Moreover, the same party supports funding contraceptives, which is also contrary to Church teaching: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." Democrat Party Platform 2008 at 50.

How dare you tell us to trust these people with our money, our lives, and our families. This is more than working out a few kinks out of a bill, this is about the future moral health of this country.

Would you tell us to support a health care "reform" put forth by the Nazi Party so long as they promised it would be "minority-neutral"? I think not!

Sister Carol Keehan of Catholic Hospital Association, with whom you have a close relationship stated falsely: "In an Aug. 3 interview with Catholic News Service, she decried the 'deliberate distortions' about health care reform being circulated by 'those who for whatever reason don't want health reform to succeed.'"

We who oppose the Democrat-Abortion-Contraception-Socialist Medicine Party are not opposed to health care reform, we have many ideas to offer. However, we are not willing to make a deal with the Devil for a mythical "Free Universal Health Care." There is no such thing as a free lunch, just ask Jesus who was tempted by the Devil to turn stones into loaves. Jesus said NO. An so should we to this Faustian bargain.

You and your Catholic "charity" allies and the Democrat Party have shown what little respect you have for us Catholic lay people and Americans.

Why should the Catholic Church in America go begging hat in hand to the federal government of the United States which has endorsed, abortion, slavery, experimentation on blacks, taking God out of the public schools, the forced integration of Native Americans, etc., for money to perform our charitable works?

Why should the Catholic Church in America go begging the federal government to FORCE its own parishioners to give money to its hospitals, why not just ask for more help every Sunday at mass? Why not appeal to our love of neighbor and God, why not talk to us and lead us gently like a true Shepard. We want to help, we want to GIVE more of our money to help the poor, we want to help make health care more accessible. But we want to do it for the love of God, our neighbor and His Church. We do not want to be forced to do so by people who have so much contempt for us that they are unwilling to even read the laws that they pass which will alter our way of life!

Do these men and women of Congress, who have exempted themselves out of the "reform" sound like the kind of people who have respect for human life from conception to natural death?

I know, or at least I knew, that when I gave money to a Catholic charity, it would go to do the Lord's work, according to Church teaching. Now I, along with many other Catholics are not so sure. My faith is not shaken in the Church but it has been shaken in you.

I will not support organizations that lobby for the taking of financial resources from Catholics by asking the federal government to increase taxes to implement a federal program that would either require Catholic charities accepting federal funds to perform abortions, provide contraception, sex change operations, etc. or will increase these practices in government or other private hospitals. These are resources that instead could and should go to Catholic hospitals and clinics that would provide care to patients according to Church teaching not government controlled health care.

I have already called the St. Vincent de Paul Society and have informed them that my giving will go to Goodwill, who has not come out to endorse any bill and actual employs the developmentally disabled and Down Syndrome people that the "health care reform" will help kill. I recommend that all other Catholics do the same.

Unless you turn back from your love of GOVERNMENT funded and Democrat run health care programs, you can count me out from the second collection when you come begging for help. If you want more health care for the poor, then you provide it and ask us for help to do it, do not sell your soul to the federal government for a plan that will not even work. Indeed, economists estimate that the bill will still leave 30 million uninsured, hardly universal coverage.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen said: "They [the socialists and totalitarians] are saying what is important only is social health not personal health. That is not true. Social health is conditioned only upon individual health. And if a doctor would leave any patient simply because he could not pay for his care or because he was apparently incurable or for any other reason in order to serve the abstract claims of society he would be selling the pass."

Do not be fooled, government run health care, is socialized health care and by supporting it you are "selling the pass" on the American people and the Catholic Church's invaluable role in American life.

God Bless,


Monday, July 13, 2009

My Reactions to New Encyclical Soon!

Just finished reading it.

I recommend it to anyone. The main point to be driven home is that the Pope finally made explicit what was always implicit in Catholic teaching: you cannot be for poor people, the environment or social justice unless you are first and foremost pro-life.

Finally seeing it in black and white, is just awesome.

Bottom line, one cannot use the "social justice" issues to ever outweigh being 100% pro-life, because being 100% pro-life is the only legitimate and authentic way to pursue social justice. Any other program, that denies the right to life, will lead to disaster and human destruction.

"One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways. . . . Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual." Caritas in veritate Paragraph 28

"If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society." Paragraph 51

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Did Obama Promise to Reduce Abortions in Rome? NO!

I have read with interest several articles and blog posts reporting the great victory of Obama promising to reduce abortions during his recent visit with the Pope. But the Reuters story is more ambiguous regarding Obama's promise to reduce abortions. It implies that many in the Vatican may have misunderstood Obama's abortion stance in much the same way that his message is misunderstood by many here in the States, especially after his Notre Dame speech. Therefore, I thought I would dig into reporting of the event, Obama's past statements and the Vatican's interpretation of the event. Not surprisingly, Obama with his skillful rhetoric has made even many of the Vatican believe that he is willing to compromise on his pro-abortion stance, when, as Cardinal Rigali would say, the "truth is opposite."

Here is a portion of the Reuters' report: "'Obama told the pope of his commitment to reduce the number of abortions and of his attention and respect for the positions of the Catholic Church,'" Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told reporters after he was briefed by the pope. Obama supports abortion rights and says his policy is to change economic and social conditions so as to put more women in situations where they do not feel they have to have an abortion." (emphasis mine)

Indeed, one of Obama's advisers pointed out the exact difference between Obama's position and an actual desire to reduce the number of abortions:

"Melody [Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List] testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. 'It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions. 'The room was silent. The goal, she insisted, is to 'reduce the need for abortions.'"

Obama is a skilled politician. He loves to speak in ways that lets his listeners fill in the gaps with what they want to hear. He purposely speaks in a way that causes this confusion. Here is a quote from his book Audacity of Hope as reported by Real Clear Politics that is highly instructive: "'I serve as a blank screen,' Obama writes, 'on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.' He notifies readers that 'my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete.'"

He speaks of reducing the need for abortions and people hear, "I want to reduce abortions." But he does not. Unless of course you count his desire to put a condom in the pocket of every oversexed teenager. Bottom line, he does not care about reducing abortions.

Indeed, John Allen's reporting for the National Catholic Reporter makes it clear that this purposeful confusion by Obama is precisely what transpired at the Vatican this week: "Responding to the pope’s concerns, Lombardi said, Obama repeated his pledge to adopt policies aimed at bringing down the abortion rate, by addressing social conditions that sometimes compel women to have abortions. Although Obama has said that before, the fact that he did so in the presence of the pope, in the eyes of many Vatican personnel, lends the pledge extra weight." (emphasis mine)

We need to carefully scrutinize and critically analyze everything Obama and his minions say and do on this issue to not get caught up in his trap of having us believe he has a desire to compromise with us! He has one goal, the implementation of a strong centralized government, that manages the largest economy on the planet with him at the helm.

Obama will take over the economy promising to reduce the need for abortion. But here is the catch, we know that abortion is never needed. To agree with him that his position is a good one, is to admit that abortion is needed. He has offered nothing but the traditional pro-choice position yet so many of us, including Vatican officials act like he is saying something good or new!

I'm waiting for him to say he will find ways to reduce the availability of the choice of abortion, to more accurately reflect the view of the majority of American's that abortion should be limited to a particular set of circumstances. That would be change and compromise from a pro-choice politician. All Obama offers now is a smokescreen to weaken our resolve, to move forward his socialist and anti-life agenda and to hide his absolute contempt for human life.

After all this is the same man who, despite wanting the most powerful office for protecting humanity in the world said the following in response to this question by Rick Warren:

"Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

The response was flip and in the style of Pontius Pilate. It is the response of a man who is not interested in the truth or in the dignity of the human person, which is a necessary prerequisite to any true human development as laid out by Pope Benedict XVI in his new encyclical, Caritas In Veritate,

We should not promote his efforts by accepting what he is reported as saying at face value. All we have is Father Lombardi's interpretation of Obama's statement, but viewed in the context of all of Obama's other statements on abortion reduction, he has made no new compromise, he has said nothing new. He just did the same thing he always does, he told some people whose support he wants, what they wanted to hear.

We, on the ground here in America, need to make this known to our fellow citizens and to Catholics around the world who only get superficial exposure to President Obama and his message, including the officials in the Vatican. Obama cannot be allowed to continue to perpetuate the myth that he wants to reduce the number of abortions while he finds new ways to pay for them.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Anti-Catholic, Communist, Discriminatory and Unoriginal

Those four words sum up the approach to "gay marriage" proposed by Catholic legal scholar Douglas W. Kmiec.

This post will not be an exhaustive article, but is meant to point out some severe defeciences in Professor Kmiec's argument: (1) Kmiec's approach is in defiance of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's requirement for all Catholics with respect to equating homosexual relationships with marriages in civil law; (2) the Kmiec "solution" of the state certifying any "couple" under the civil law is nothing more than the legalization of "free love" or "wives in common" proposed by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto; (3) the Kmiec approach is a reverse Luther heresy, Luther rightfully pointed out that non-Catholics can get married but wrongfully concluded that this meant that the State not the Church had ultimate authority over marriage, Kmiec argues that because the Church has ultimate authority over marriage that the State has no authority over marriage and that non-believers cannot be married; and (4) lastly and worst from the academic perspective, Kmiec's solution to eliminate legal marriage is unoriginal and he has yet to attribute the idea to any of the feminist legal scholars who have discussed this approach to legally recognized family relationships for 20 years.

The CDF states that: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." CDF Document on Homosexual Unions at Paragraph 5. Rather than emphatically opposing homosexual unions Professor Kmiec has proposed equating homosexual unions with marriage!

Here is an example of Douglas Kmiec equating marriage with homosexual relationships: "Instead, the state would give everyone -- gay or straight -- a civil union license and allow churches, synagogues, temples and mosques to say who can and cannot 'marry' within their individual traditions. Religious freedom, a bedrock constitutional value of like importance to equality, would also be a winner."

Does that sound like "emphatic opposition" to anyone?

Kmiec's solution is also Marxist. Marx's solution in the Communist Manifesto to the family was a system of legalized "free love" or "common wives": "Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. "

In other words, Marx proposed the elimination of marriage and replacing it with some system of cooperation agreements. Legalized "free love." Is this not the civil union proposed by Kmiec, which would require the state to approve of any two individuals who wish to have a legally recognized sexual relationship?

The solution proposed by Kmiec is also discriminatory against non-believers. The Church teaches that marriage is part of the natural law and is an institution that is accessible to all men and women. Marriage is a religious institution, but it is not only a religious institution. A marriage between non-believers is still a marriage, it is not a sacrament. See CCC 1601 ("The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.")

The Kmiec proposal is an anti-Luther heresy. Luther proposed that marriage was solely a civil institution under the authority of the state. Kmiec proposes that marriage is solely a religious institution under the authority of Church. The truth lies in the middle. The Church has ultimate authority over marriage, especially sacramental marriage, but the state has a role to play as well to recognize valid marriages and to ensure that the legitimate rights of husbands, wives and parents are recognized. The premise proposed by Kmiec, that marriage is a solely religious institution is wrong from the start. Marriage is both civil and religious. To deny unbelievers the status of marriage, is a denial of a God given right and the natural state of marriage.

Lastly, Kmiec's solution is unoriginal. After reading some of his initial articles on the issue, I was reminded of a Weekly Standard article by Stanley Kurtz written for the August 2003 issue exploring the dangers of gay marriage. Mr. Kurtz's article pointed out that several of the initial supporters of eliminating marriage, Judith Stacey, Martha Fineman, Martha Ertman became supporters of gay marriage as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of eliminating marriage.

For example, according to Mr. Kurtz, Ms. Ertman has proposed eliminating marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with a system of contracts. Sound familiar? This is the Kmiec solution. Ironically, the different solutions to eliminate marriage proposed by these feminist women to liberate women have gotten little attention, but when proposed by a man, Kmiec, he gets space in the Los Angeles Times.

Most disturbingly, none a single one of these women has been mentioned by Professor Kmiec as an inspiration for his idea. Nor has he explained why his proposal is different from these women. A legal scholar should know better.

So, to sum it up the Kmiec solution is anti-Catholic, communist, discriminatory and unoriginal.

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization!

Not Islam. Which tried to destroy Western Civilization including grapes!

But according to the President of the United States in Cairo, our country, which is "not a Christian country" according to Obama, owes much of its success to Islam.’s-christian-muslim-double-standard-our-first-dhimmi-president/

A quick and brilliant breakdown of this foolishness from Rush Limbaugh:

"OBAMA: As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it could be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy, and places of peaceful contemplation -- and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

RUSH: Okay. I know we're not supposed to criticize Obama's speech here. I know it's going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let's see. Where do we start here? "It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra." No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. "Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation," Islam gave us these? No. "Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn't do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam."

Now, what am I supposed to say? I'm not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let's see, let's see. "Our mastery of pens and printing..." Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn't know Gutenberg was a Muslim. "Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed..."? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? "Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires..." Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, "timeless poetry and cherished music." The only problem there is that music -- and musical instruments especially -- are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam's "religious tolerance" has been demonstrated. Okay, I'm... Take it away."

The learning of the ancient world was kept by the Church in her monasteries and the Renaissance was funded and inspired by the Church in Rome, hence the Italian title for this movement in human learning. Please check out Thomas E. Woods' book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" for a good review of the true protector and builder of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church and Her Spouse, Christ!

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Obama: Catholic or Imitator of Appearance? Plato and Pope John Paul II Respond

The Creative Minority Report has pointed out a new article in Commonweal that asks the question of whether Obama is "Catholic."

During the election, Professor Kmiec asserted that the most "Catholic" candidate was Obama.

I have noticed that in both articles the term "Catholic sensibility" appears. This is no accident. You see, sensibility does not mean that Obama is actually Catholic or even shares Catholic beliefs, it means exactly what it says, Obama creates the "sense" that he has Catholic beliefs.

Obama believes that it is the woman's fundamental right to killer her baby.

He also has stated that he does not know when a human baby gets human rights, the answer to that question is "above [his] pay grade."

Obama is a Sophist. He trades in lies as do those Catholics who state that Obama is "Catholic." They all wish to imitate the appearance of being Catholic, i.e. provide the sense of being Catholic without having to be Catholic.

Let us have Plato instruct us on who is an imitator of appearance and we shall find that Obama is among them.

Plato in defining the Sophist explains that there are many in this world who do not know true justice or virtue, but who know the form of justice and virtue and have their own false opinion of what justice consists. To show that their opinion of justice and virtue is true justice and virtue these individuals imitate the form of justice to make it seem that their false opinion of justice is actually justice.

Among these imitators of appearance, as labeled by Plato, there are two types: "[O]ne of the two classes of imitators is a simple creature, who thinks that he knows that which he only fancies; the other sort has knocked about among arguments, until he suspects and fears that he is ignorant of that which to the many he pretends to know."

The Sophist falls in the latter category. This is Obama and his Catholic ilk. At the Notre Dame speech Obama used words to create the imagery and sense of Catholic values. However, sense when united with false opinion can create false images and idols. Obama is not for social justice because as Pope John Paul II stated in The Gospel of Life:

"Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun." Paragraph 20 (emphasis added).

You see the "social justice" preached by Obama and accepted by his Catholic fans, is not justice at all because it accepts and practices the most unjust discrimination of all; determining that some individuals, unborn babies, are not deserving of defense but others are provided that dignity. The "social justice" offered by Obama is not justice, under either a classical understanding of the term nor under Catholic teaching. What Obama offers is the image or idol of justice but what is in reality the a false justice or injustice.

Obama's speeches and the writings of his Catholic friends are designed to do one thing, to get Catholics who are not properly catechised to get the "sense" that their false opinion regarding social justice is the Church's teaching on social justice when it is not. Obama and his version of justice are as truly Catholic as Lenin's, i.e. neither vision is a Catholic vision. That is why the most his apologists can offer is Obama's "Catholic sensibility." But this is another way of saying what Obama offers is the imitation of the appearance of being Catholic, which is to say Obama offers rejection of Catholic teaching in a pretty Catholic looking wrapper. Who else is it that offers spiritual and worldly rewards in the image of a shining angel but is a liar from the beginning? I let you connect the dots as to where this Obama approach to Catholicism is originating from.

As for me, I will follow Plato's advice and wait for the real thing.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

To All The Mark Shea's Out There

Check out this dose of reality from The Catholic Thing:

A former SEAL discusses and reflects upon his experience being waterboarded as part of his training.

Fear inducing, maybe. Uncomfortable, definitely. Torture, no way.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

America and Sweden, Partners in Promoting Gender Based Violence

Sweden just held that a women is entitled to kill her baby due solely to being the wrong gender, which is typically female.

This is already legal in America: Apparently the littlest women do not have the freedom of choice to live.

The barbarism we allow in "civilized" society disgusts me. As does the hypocracy of feminists who claim to be pro-women, yet promote laws and policies which allow the ultimate violence, murder to be disproportionately inflicted on the littlest women among us.

Abortion is NOT about women's rights, it is about killing the innocent that are inconvenient. The worst of the bunch are not the women that are taken advantage of and most of the time are physically and psychologically pressured to abort their babies, it is these murderous and hypocritical "abortion doctors" and feminist philosophers who are at war with one of the most beautiful aspects of womanhood, motherhood.

May God have mercy on our Western Civilization for supporting and funding this evil which is a violent attack on babies and women.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Kmiec Woe to You!

In a recent interview with The Economist, law professor Douglas Kmeic, has opposed the Church's teaching on legal rights for homosexual unions, specific documents produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, at the time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Here is a comparison of a statement made by Professor Kmiec and the requirements of the faithful as stated by the CDF.

Kmiec: "Since the state has the primary obligation of equality for all, the effect of the proposition [Kmiec's proposition] is to direct the state to issue a license by a name other than marriage to all couples–gay or straight–who apply. The concept of marriage, of course, is then fully remitted to religious bodies who can indulge same-sex marriage within their respective religious communities or not in accord with the religion’s doctrine.
It remains to be seen–by early June if the court stays on schedule–if the state Supreme Court agrees. During oral arguments, several justices seemed quite taken with the idea of separating marriage from the state and both sides more or less agreed such a solution would resolve the case. The court should take this path, and simultaneously encourage the legislature to confirm the freedom of religious bodies to determine their own standards or requirements for marriage."

Let us see what the Church has to say:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil." CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons at Paragraph 5, June 3, 2003 (emphasis added).

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection." Id. (emphasis added).

Rather than make a clear and emphatic opposition, Kmiec has written publicly several times that the state should equate marriage with homosexual unions on several occasions. Indeed, he has been recognized as being responsible for this proposal that is being considered by the California Supreme Court, which would eliminate state recognized marriage for all.,8599,1885190,00.html

Additionally, Kmiec's proposal was distributed widely, especially to the youth of America, by his interview on the Colbert Report.

Here has also proposed this line of argument to fellow attorneys, as a serious legal solution to the current "gay marriage" debate. Providing a legal framework with which to create complete legal equivalence between homosexual unions and marriage. , .

In other words, Professor Kmiec has continued on a very public and deliberate path in supporting something which, according to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it is our religious and moral duty to oppose. Additionally, by teaching his doctrine and demanding its acceptance as the correct choice, Professor Kmiec has placed himself in opposition to the teaching authority of the Church. This is a grave scandal.

Professor Kmiec if you are reading this please read the following from the Catechism:

"2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.86
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!""

By your public pronouncements that are clearly designed to invite fellow citizens to agree with you and to get the California Supreme Court to adopt your solution, which is opposed to truth, justice and Holy Mother Church, you are giving a great scandal to me and others. Please stop. Not only for the sake of others but for your sake. Please, you are too good of a man to have fallen this far down, to use your training to advance such a grave sin.

Your own Bishop, Cardinal Mahoney has spoken out in favor of Proposition 8. I hope he has the time to correct you. Dear Professor Kmiec, I hope you have not forgotten that the Bishop is the teaching authority for the archdiocese: "He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. " St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians at Chapter 5. What more can I add to St. Ignatius?

To everyone else, I know it is hard, but please pray for Professor Kmiec, for nothing is impossible with God.

UPDATE: Kmiec After Being Refused Communion by a Priest now Excommunicated from Wikipedia. Will he include this in all subsequent article biographies?

UPDATE 2: via American Papist and Kathryn Lopez at NRO, Archbishop Burke declares that Kmiec's moral teaching on Catholic Voting is opposed to the teaching of the Church and that NO Catholic could have voted for Obama with a clear conscience:

UPDATE 3: On that note from Archbishop Burke regarding support for gay marriage and pro-abortion candidates and the conscience. I leave this last quote from Pope Benedict XVI for all those who have suggested that we compromise on the most fundamental right of all, the right to life, in exchange for the political influence to achieve other "goods": "A man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 10th Workshop for Bishops, February 1991, Dallas, Texas).

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Sanctity of Human Life Act

H.R. 227 (111th) - The Sanctity of Human Life Act was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 7, 2009. If passed, the bill will provide that human life begins with fertilization. To read the entire bill, go to

Please contact U.S. Congress to encourage a YES vote!

UN Petition to Protect All Human Life and Families

Please sign the following petition, which is to be delivered to the UN asking for the defense of all human life from conception to natural death and the right of parents to raise and educate their children!

The right to life should be held sacred and inviolate in the whole world. Let's help make that happen.

Please share the link!

Not Racism and Segregation Again! (PARODY)

Can we just get over Racism, we are never going to get rid of it. In fact, why do we have discrimination laws. Plus could we just once, have a judicial nomination process that doesn't harp on whether or not civil rights legislation is considered constitutional by the nominee! I mean it is so exasperating. These laws won't even change one racist's heart. Can the Church stop pushing for political victories, leave the public square and just talk to the parishioners who happen to make it to Church about racism and how the Church thinks its bad and stuff. After all, the decision to be a racist is a "tragic moral choice" not an intrinsic evil no matter what. And who are we to make that choice for the racist. And really, by what principle do we decide to punish racists who actually discriminate and but not those who don't? Let's just give up and move on people. It's been more than 500 years and its not going to change anytime soon, get it!

Okay, enough parody. I am really against racism and think it can be stopped constitutionally under the 13th Amendment, but that is a discussion for another day. Here is yet another "deep" piece from Professor Douglas Kmiec, in America Magazine, which is unfortunately not a parody. On a side note, how many more times is he planning on slandering our Holy Mother Church in America for being nothing more than a soulless partisan hack that needs to get back to the business of making religion private rather than implemented in public policy but at the same time say that the current child torturer-in-chief is implementing the commands of the Prophet Micah in Holy Scripture?

[I've decided to through in some of my own comments in red]

"Not Abortion Again
For the past 30 years or so, abortion has dominated confirmation battles. It may have a role again, even though it is highly unlikely an Obama nominee will see abortion differently than Justice Souter. Yet empathy supplies insight here, too. Abortion is exactly what the president says it is: “a tragic moral choice.” [No what abortion is is an intrinsic evil] Conservative law professors helping GOP presidential candidates would insist that this choice be made criminal. [Yes, so does the Pope as you will recall from your Time Magazine piece flipping out after Nancy Pelosi got Catechised] After Originalism, this “reverse Roe” mantra has been the conservative litmus test for Court appointment. [Yes it is also the litmus test for all legitimate government, just check out the Declaration of Independence] Yet even to me, a defender of the idea that personhood begins at conception, the inadequacy of using abortion as a measure of judicial merit is obvious by its narrowness. [Clearly . . . Uh wait a minute, the inescapable logic has seemed to escaped me.] From the standpoint of empathy, is it really likely that if Roe is overturned, the states will criminalize abortion sending predominantly poor women and college co-eds to jail? [Ah, glad to see that specious straw man argument coming from a "friend" of the pro-life cause] And if compassion exempts these women from incarceration, what consistent principle then sends the doctors off to prison? [It is something that first year law school students learn about, it's called mens rea. The principle is that those who clearly and purposely chose, without duress to do evil get punished more than those in the type of mental state that women in crises pregnancies have. Plus the doctor who is in a position of responsibility and has the ability to nurture and protect both the mother and child instead takes advantage of the mother's weakened emotional and mental state to kill her child for a profit! Therefore, the more depraved the mental state of the actor, the greater the punishment. It is basic principle of ancient common law.] With these rather basic questions unanswered, questioning a nominee about Roe will tell us little that is coherent. Does empathy tell us anything important about abortion? It is not, as some religious conservatives claim, just a covert ratification of the practice. No, in ways far more subtle than the bloody images of dissected babies often thrust in the faces of women confronted with an untimely pregnancy, empathy reveals the limits of the law and the importance of giving a woman without insurance or the resources needed to sustain herself, the assistance necessary to allow her to complete a pregnancy. President Obama reaffirmed this point at his most recent press conference. Women, he said, do not make this decision casually. [No they make it with the full moral, financial and legal support of Barack Obama and after being fed the lies of Planned Parenthood. They are taken advantage of because they are in a vulnerable mental state by the current president and his political allies who fight informed consent laws! Does Obama's empathy know no bounds?] Indeed, his own very close relationship with his mother left him with the profound understanding that an expectant mother more honestly and plainly than anyone else understands and anticipates the needs not just of the infant in her womb, but of the child at 3, 12 and 28 years of age." [Yes unlike us pro-lifers who never had a mother nor empathy, Obama is in a perfect position to make the only meaningful statements on abortion that we must listen to. Plus, abortion was not legal when Obama's mom was pregnant so we don't even know if he would have had a chance to know his mom. But luckily for the grand empathizer Obama, abortion wasn't legal when he was conceived.]

Here is the link if you feel the need to look, though it isn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend it:


Another good Kmiec criticism can be found at

Monday, May 4, 2009

A Friend of the Church?

From a report of a the Catholic News Service:

"Douglas Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., and former law school dean at The Catholic University of America in Washington, said laws are based on "someone's concept of good", which is generally traceable to religious belief. Disputed concepts of good are reconciled in the United States by persuasion and the democratic process, he said.The Catholic Church is not necessarily guided by this process, because it claims that a democratic outcome can never trump the truth, he said, although truth claims are always disputed."The modern church has defined itself not in terms of the conversion of the heart, but in terms of its political victories," he said. This puts the church in an awkward position to ask for exemptions from generally applicable laws, he said. Kmiec said there should be a presumption against giving institutional exemptions to laws, but a great sensitivity to granting individual exemptions." (Emphasis Added).

I agree, I think I saw something about Pope Benedict XVI starting a PAC as the reason he visited America last year. Gimme a break!

Friday, May 1, 2009

BREAKING: Justice Souter to Retire!

Justice Souter has announced that he is going to retire.

Many will lament that this is President Obama's chance to appoint a new justice, but let me give an alternative spin. This is good news.

First, Justice Souter is relatively young; therefore, even if President Obama picks another "young" person for the position the leftist point of view will not gain that many additional years on the Supreme Court bench.

Second, we are just going to get a pro-abortion leftist for a pro-abortion leftist, no change in the balance of the Court.

Third, the nomination and appointment process is going to start in the lead up to the election and will be a great way to educate the American people as to how radical President Obama is by tying the views of whatever leftist jurist he picks to him.

Fourth, it is going to highlight the importance of the Supreme Court nomination power of the President for the next election a fact that will fire up more people to come out and vote pro-life.

Fifth, it is highly probable that any President Obama nominee can be "filibustered."

That is my take. What do you think?

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Real Torture President

I agree with those who say it is time for a Nuremberg type truth finding tribunal on the torture question.

But what is the torture question? In particular I am interested in discovering those individuals who have made the legal justifications for a policy which allows the dismemberment and torture of innocent civilians for the material comfort and protection of Americans at home and others abroad.

Let me read to you one of the procedures that has been legally justified by government attorneys as well as their allies in Congress, the media and in academia:

"The primary form of abortion used at or after 16 weeks’ gestation is known as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E.” 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1103, 1129 (Neb. 1998). When performed during that stage of pregnancy, the D&E procedure requires the physician to dilate the woman’s cervix and then extract the fetus from her uterus with forceps. Id., at 1103; App. 490 (American Medical Association (AMA), Report of the Board of Trustees on Late-Term Abortion). Because of the fetus’ size at this stage, the physician generally removes the fetus by dismembering the fetus one piece at a time.3 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1103—1104. The doctor grabs a fetal extremity, such as an arm or a leg, with forceps and “pulls it through the cervical os … tearing … fetal parts from the fetal body … by means of traction.” Id., at 1104. See App. 55 (testimony of Dr. Carhart). In other words, the physician will grasp the fetal parts and “basically tear off pieces of the fetus and pull them out.” Id., at 267 (testimony of Dr. Stubblefield). See also id., at 149 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson) (“[Y]ou grasp the fetal parts, and you often don’t know what they are, and you try to pull it down, and its … simply all there is to it”). The fetus will die from blood loss, either because the physician has separated the umbilical cord prior to beginning the procedure or because the fetus loses blood as its limbs are removed. Id., at 62—64 (testimony of Dr. Carhart); id., at 151 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson)." Stenberg v. Carhart (Thomas, J., dissenting).

The dismembering of a child is not illegal in this country. The partial-birth abortion ban did not eliminate it. Partial-birth abortion involves carving out a baby's brain with scissors. But back to the above torture method.

The dismembering of innocent people to kill them is torture. Under any international law regime, I'm sure we can agree on that. Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, states that: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

But on the same day that President Obama announced waterboarding is torture, he stated that he was in favor of removing all restrictions to abortion through the Freedom of Choice Act, even if it was "not highest legislative priority." In other words, he has promised to sign FOCA, but it is not at the very top of his agenda.

FOCA would spread child torture. As President, Obama has already rescinded the Mexcio City Policy, which has authorized funding of international child dismemberment and torture. I want to have the names and memoranda of the people who justified this. President Obama has also nominated, Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the White House. Dawn Johnsen has crafted the legal justification for child dismemberment and torture by comparing pregnancy to slavery.

Additionally, President Obama's Secretary of State has expressly stated that she intends to spread Margaret Sanger's vision abroad. This includes child dismemberment and torture as well. I want all legal memoranda and persons who gave Mrs. Clinton the legal justification for this as well.

I also want any name of any person who legally justified the President allowing funding of UNFPA which forcibly tortures and dismembers children without even the consent of the mothers in China. What torturers might refer to as a twofer.

I also want Senator Patrick Leahy and his staff to be included in the Nuremberg-type inquiry. This Catholic United States Senator voted against reinstituting the Mexico City Policy, to prevent child dismemberment, but is calling for a truth commission to investigate the forcible pouring of water over three terrorists' heads.,,

We need to see the memos that helped Senator Leahy justify funding child dismemberment and the elimination of conscience protection for doctors so that they will be forced to participate in child dismemberment and torture.

We also need to investigate those outside of government who have produced legal and moral opinions justifying child dismemberment. For example, on October 17, 2008, Dr. Douglas Kmiec, who has called for a Nuremberg style inquiry of Judge Bybee, stated the following legal justification for child dismemberment and child torture: "Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space.",0,163397.story ,,0,3839563.story. In other words, we need a legal space for child torture. We need an inquiry of all academics who have produced legal and moral opinions of this sort to justify child dismemberment and torture.

So you see now, who the real torture president is: President Barack Obama. He appoints those who promote, he argues for and he funds child torture. More than that, he is implementing regulations that will require doctors to betray their calling to heal by forcing them to torture children. Not only that, but many Catholics are using the Faith in a blasphemous way to justify this horrendous torture policy. Additionally, to add to the injustice, these same engineers of a legal system which tortures 42,000,000 innocent children worldwide every year are calling for the prosecution of an administration that approved the waterboarding of 3 guilty terrorists but who dared to speak out against child torture. They want you to be distracted by these "torture memos."

I will not keep my eye off the ball. And neither should you. The real torturers need to be stopped. The child torturer President Obama is receiving an honorary award from a Catholic University named after the world's best Mother. This is a disgrace. I would take a moral lecture from King George III more seriously than from President Obama.

President Obama has no credibility on the torture question, because he is the most powerful supporter of child torture in the world and he is using his influence at home and abroad to spread it. Let us not act otherwise and be fooled into labeling anyone else the "torture president" that title belongs to the man currently occupying the White House.


Obama/Clinton adding further evidence to be used against them at the future international human rights tribunal:


I've been officially blocked from commenting on Mark Shea's blog after I criticized him referring to those who justified torture of evil doers for the defense of others as "moral idiots" by pointing out that would mean St. Thomas Aquinas is a moral idiot. Additionally, he singled out Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., a contributor to This Rock magazine, which is produced by Catholic Answers an apostolate that Mark Shea advertises and comments on.

Mark Shea's tone has gotten so bad that The Anchoress has stated that she is unsure if she can read his blog anymore. (see the above website's combox).

Plus, I pointed out that perhaps he should focus on the mote in his own eye considering he contravened the Catechism by implying that not voting in the presidential election was a valid choice: "2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country." (emphasis added). ,

I think this last point I made is what got me blocked from commenting on Mr. Shea's blog. But that is pure speculation, I'd be interested to here why I got blocked.

Mark, if you are reading this, I'm praying for the both of us. But I am really worried about the ugly name calling that you have consistently engaged in on this issue. It is not good.


As far as I know, I'm still blocked but at least Mark, to his credit has apologized for the "moral idiot" name calling. I still think he needs to recognize that the ideas espoused by those who do not agree with him are well considered and not idiotic in light of those Doctors of the Church who disagree with him.