A Catholic VP?

Could happen.

Take a look at the shortlists of the two candidates. Senator McCain's shortlist includes three Catholics:
Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom
Ridge. Senator Obama's shortlist includes six Catholics: Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Kansas Governor Kathleen
Sebelius, Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island), Senator Joe Biden (Delaware), Senator Chris Dodd (Conneticut, and New
Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

I think it more likely that one of the Democrats makes the spot, but Governor Jindal would be an exciting choice.

Panel Discussion: Hispanics and Catholic New York

Rafael Pi Roman, Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete, Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, Barbara Gonzalez and David Gonzalez participated in a panel discussion on the history and future of Hispanic Catholics in New York. Sewell Chan of the New York Time's "City Room" has the details:

Many people, if asked when Hispanics began to reshape the Catholic Church in New York City, would probably put the date around 1950, when Puerto Rican migrants began arriving in Manhattan in large numbers. But in fact, Hispanics had exerted a powerful influence on religion and society in New York more than a century earlier, an important insight that emerged from a panel discussion on Tuesday night at the Museum of the City of New York.

The panel discussion — part of an exhibition, “Catholics in New York, 1808-1946,” that is on view through Dec. 31 — was billed as a talk on Latinos and the future of Catholic New York. The most informative parts of the 90-minute discussion focused on little-known aspects of social, religious and urban history. Rafael Pi Roman, the host of WNET’s “New York Voices,” moderated the discussion.

Click here for a full report.

Keep Robert Novak in your prayers.

Influential conservative commentator, Catholic convert and longtime Washington journalist Robert Novak has been hospitalized after being diagnosed with a brain tumor:

“On Sunday, July 27, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor," Novak wrote in a statement given to his publisher. "I have been admitted to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where doctors will soon begin appropriate treatment.

“I will be suspending my journalistic work for an indefinite but, God willing, not too lengthy period.”

GetReligion has an extensive post on Mr. Novak, along with the scoop on his conversion:

Novak was born Jewish and attended Christian services sporadically until the mid-1960s, after which he stopped going to religious services for nearly 30 years. But Novak said the Holy Spirit began to intervene in his life. . . .

The turning point, as he recounts in his book, happened when he went to Syracuse University in New York to give a lecture. Before he spoke, he was seated at a dinner table near a young woman who was wearing a necklace with a cross. Novak asked her if she was Catholic, and she posed the same question to him.

Novak replied that he had been going to Mass each Sunday for the last four years, but that he had not converted.

Her response — “Mr. Novak, life is short, but eternity is forever” — motivated him to start the process of becoming a Catholic through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. He was baptized at St. Patrick’s Church in 1998.

See also: The Conversion of Bob Novak: He Was Called the Prince of Darkness. Now That He's Gotten Religion, Is He Any Nicer? The Washingtonian June 1, 2003:

The solemnity lifted for a moment when Monsignor Vaghi said how privileged they were to witness the transformation of the "prince of darkness" into a "child of light."

After the ceremony, Senator Moynihan quipped, "Well, we've now made Bob a Catholic. The question is, can we make him a Christian?"

CNN Covers the Born Alive Infant Protection Act

James Carville & William Bennett debate Barack Obama's vote on the Born Alive Infant Protections Act on CNN. (Via Brian Burch @ Fidelis).

Character Counts--It's a Crucial Catholic Issue

My gut feeling about the Obama candidacy: a grinning empty suit grasping for words in sentences punctuated with long pauses like a confused early adolescent and constantly spinning rationalizations to forever fend off the need to admit a mistake. The young teenager has an excuse--he is just beginning to grow and just beginning to grasp the complexity of the world; the middle-aged man presenting himself as presidential material doesn't have that excuse. The Obama phenomenon reminds me that in our Western culture delayed adolescence (and an early form of adolescence at that) can extend well into middle age and beyond. Immaturity has become for many, especially baby boomers, a cradle-to-grave phenomenon: the legacy of the sixties. My hope is that many voters will ask themselves: do we want a mature or an immature President? Do we want a middle-aged adolescent or a man formed and seasoned by suffering and sacrifice? The great Presidents were those seasoned by suffering and sacrifice.

Obama the Eccentric in Wonderland

A great editorial on the confusing absurdity and Alice-in-Wonderland quality of Obama's attempts to explain his position on Iraq. Here is the link (and, amazingly, the editorial is from the Washington Post).

Below is an excerpt:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

. . . .

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Source link (emphasis added by blogger).

The Hype

There is a level of hype going on with the media coverage of the Obama campaign that is astounding. These videos try to expose it. There is just something too smooth about Obama, so smooth that it tells me and others that something is being carefully hidden. What is it? My guess is an authentically, ideologically leftist radical candidate for President that makes the George McGovern of 1972 look tame. Right now he is in what would be called the "popular front" mode in which you reveal as little as possible of your true beliefs to maximize the bandwagon effect so that you can get elected. The true beliefs emerge if he gets in the White House.

Political Heresy: Bush Won the Iraq War (With a Strategic Push from McCain)

That's at least the conclusion I draw from a recent report by well-regarded Iraq blogger/correspondent Michael Yon at this link. Here is the crucial excerpt:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Source link (July 14, 2008, post by Michael Yon; emphasis added).

The only way we can pull defeat out of apparent victory is to elect Barack Obama whose weak rhetoric and nonsensical, arbitrary mantra of "withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal" in 16 months will simply embolden our enemies to persist and try to overturn the progress made in Iraq. The job remains to be finished, consolidated, and secured. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory would be catastrophic for the United States. McCain is the only candidate we can rely on to finish the job, wisely and responsibly--especially since McCain almost singlehandedly pushed for the winning surge strategy in Iraq. In addition, as Michael Yon also reports in the same post, there is serious trouble in Afghanistan. McCain is the Commander-in-Chief to take charge and turn that situation around also. Obama is the last, best hope of our enemies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Catholics should be very, very concerned when they see Obama, the new Neville Chamberlain, seeking to snatch defeat out the jaws of victory won against the forces of terror--a victory won in spite of Obama's outspoken opposition to McCain's winning surge strategy in Iraq. Obama is "a dog that won't hunt" as Commander-in-Chief, especially in wartime.

Pro-Obama N.Y. Times Rejects McCain Op-Ed on Iraq

I guess the truth is dangerous to Obama's campaign of deception (another in a multitude of reasons for Catholics to reject this deeply flawed candidate): how to disguise his true beliefs as a doctrinaire leftist until after the November election. Here is the rejected McCain piece, courtesy of the Drudge Report and of the internet's technological ability to outflank the mainstream media. You can also go to Fox News to get the text of McCain's rejected op-ed. Below is what John McCain wrote and the N.Y. Times rejected (red emphasis added by blogger):

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.



Blogger Note:

The Washington Post political blog chimes in and astutely asks at this link:

"Who needs the Times when you've got a big online megaphone?"

Obama, McCain and Pope Benedict's "Non-Negotiables"

In remarks to the European People's Party on 30 March 2006, Pope Benedict XVI presented the following principles which he describes as "non-negotiable" for Catholic voters:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
  
• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
  
• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

With respect to which, Jay Anderson examines Obama's position wanting.

Does that make McCain the ideal choice for Catholics? -- Well, no. McCain has a commendable pro-life record on abortion, meriting the endorsement of the The National Right to Life Committee. (See also McCain's record on abortion PDF). He has also recently expressed his support of parental choice in education.

However, as Jay points out McCain himself falls short of Catholic standards on embryonic stem cell research; and, it would appear, the matter of gay adoption as well (hat tip: Creative Minority Report).

At this stage in the game, with neither a fully desireable choice, "we're left with the prudential analysis of which candidate is the lesser of grave evils."

As Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) noted in a memo to the U.S. Bishops in 2004:

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Back in February, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who oversaw the drafting of "Faithful Citizenship" while chairman of the USCCB's domestic policy committee, provided his clarification of what "proportionate reasons" mean:

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) -- A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.

"Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits. ...

"In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.

"Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.

(Tip of the hat to: Rich Leonardi; Fr. Martin Fox).

"Catholics United" Gets Divisive

From The Washington Post: "Catholic Activists Ask McCain to Boot Faith Adviser"

Tensions are heating up among politically-minded Catholic activists after a group of left-leaning Catholics today publicly asked Sen. John McCain to boot a faith adviser who resigned from the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of allegations he sexually harassed a college student.

"Deal Hudson is not the type of Catholic leader you want publicly associated with your campaign," read the letter from Catholics United to McCain.

The allegations against Deal Hudson are not new and their reappearance reflects the nasty back-and-forth among Catholic activists as the election draws closer. Hudson, a member of the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee, resigned as publisher of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis after the allegations first surfaced in 2004 in the pages of the National Catholic Reporter.

The Catholic League: "Phony Assault on Deal Hudson"

“There is nothing Catholic about these charges. Catholics put a premium on forgiveness and reconciliation—they do not conduct vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause. Hudson has made several public statements of apology regarding his improper sexual encounter with a coed in 1994. What are we to do as Catholics—say it isn’t enough? Ted Kennedy belongs to Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. Should he be criticized? Certainly: I did just that when I cited his 100 percent NARAL record. What I didn’t do was cite his past sexual indiscretions, one of which left a young woman dead.

Deal Hudson: "A Few Words About My Past Scandal"

As you might have read, my 1994 scandal is back in the news. My past continues to be a source of shame to me and, unfortunately, my family.

My wife forgave me 14 years ago, and my daughter did the same 4 years ago when she read the National Catholic Reporter story. I hope my son will also be forgiving when he's old enough to find out his dad is very far from perfect.

I'm not blaming anyone for this. It was my own fault. And while the revelation of my failing was deeply humiliating, it was also an important wake up call for me. Over the past four years, I've tried to make amends with family, friends, and supporters. People close to me say I'm a different person now, and I’d like to think that’s true.

Deacon Keith Fournier: "In Defense of Deal Hudson: 'Catholics United' Should be Ashamed!"

... First, let me put it bluntly, for a group calling itself “Catholics United”, you should be ashamed of yourself! Do you believe in the efficacy of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

***
You can disagree with Deal Hudson’s Politics. I do, and I have, on many occasions and over many issues. I have made it known quite strongly. Every time I have done so, he has been a worthy opponent.

You have had every opportunity to take your own Policy disagreements to the Public Square. I for one would have welcomed an intelligent debate. Instead, you have now resorted to impugning a fellow Catholic’s character by bringing up a past indiscretion which was forgiven in the Sacraments.

By resorting to such calumny and vicious written attacks like the kind you entered into in that E-Blast, you have also undermined your own moral credibility. After all, at the heart of the entirety of Catholic Social teaching is the virtue of Charity.

It was "Gotcha" politics at its worst 4 years ago when Joe Feuerherd (he of "the Bishops can go to hell" fame) revealed Deal Hudson's past sinful behavior on the pages of National Catholic Reporter as "payback" for the USCCB's firing of a staffer after Hudson had revealed the staffer was moonlighting by working on the Kerry campaign; and it's "Gotcha" politics at its worst 4 years later as "Catholics United" decides to get into the gutter rather than refute Hudson on the issues.

But what can they say to refute Hudson's arguments that their candidate is out of step with Catholic teaching on such non-negotiable issues as abortion? Nothing. And as the Catholic supporters of Democrats are wont to do when the facts are against them, they change the subject. Deflect and defame (in true Clintonian fashion).

The most positive aspect of this controversy is that the jerks at "Catholics United" have now completely discredited themselves. Contrary to the image they seek to portray of a "non-partisan" organization "refus[ing] to water down our faith in service of partisan politics", so-called "Catholics United" have exposed themselves as petty, partisan hacks who will go to any extreme - including dragging a Catholic brother through the mud by republishing his past sin - in order to advance the political cause of electing Democrats.

No Character

Integrity, character, and honor are traits that Catholics desire in a political leader. Obama lacks them. In contrast, McCain is a man of principle who stands fast even when it is politically inexpedient to do so.

McCain Endorses School Vouchers

McCain spoke today before the NAACP and endorsed school vouchers:

In greeting the group, McCain praised Democrat Barack Obama’s historic campaign, but said the Illinois senator is wrong to oppose school vouchers for students in failing public schools. It is time, McCain said, to use vouchers and other tools like merit pay for teachers to break from conventional thinking on educational policy.

Source link.

Expanding school vouchers is the change we need. What Obama offers is continued educational failure.

Deal Hudson: "Open Letter to Doug Kmiec on Obama"

Deal Hudson respectfully challenges Doug Kmiec's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama.

Robert Anthony Snow 1955-2008

Tony Snow, former White House Press Secretary for President Bush and television and radio personality, has lost his battle with cancer:

Mr. Snow’s death was announced by the White House. When a recurrence of the cancer interrupted his tenure there, he chose to talk about it openly, saying he wanted to offer hope to other patients. His message to them, he said, was: “Don’t think about dying. Think about living.”

With his tall, lanky frame, his head of thick gray hair (it thinned, but never disappeared, during chemotherapy) and his showman’s style, Mr. Snow, who joined the White House in April 2006, helped reinvigorate a press operation that many Republicans believed had been lacking. He loved serving at the White House, once calling it “the most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I’m ever going to have.” ...

“It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day,” the president said in a statement from Camp David, where he is spending the weekend. “He brought wit, grace and a great love of country to his work. His colleagues will cherish memories of his energetic personality and relentless good humor.”

Before becoming the chief spokesman for the president, Mr. Snow was a syndicated newspaper columnist and later a commentator for Fox News. He was also host of the network’s Sunday public affairs program “Fox News Sunday.”

A convert to the Catholic faith, Tony Snow gave the Commencement Address on "Reason, Faith and Vocation" at the Catholic University in America in May 2007.

See also Tony Snow Dead at 53, A Tribute to a Catholic Journalist, by Deacon Keith Fournier (Catholic.org July 12, 2008).

For political junkies, Snow's conferences were great entertainment. Unlike his predecessor, he relished the back-and-forth banter and could stand his own against the interrogations of the press, giving them a run for their money (Examples here and here and here).

Related

• The Character of Optimism, by William Kristol. New York Times July 14, 2008:

  Tony Snow was a conservative. But he didn’t have a prejudice in favor of melancholy. His deep Christian faith combined with his natural exuberance to give him an upbeat world view. Watching him, and so admiring his remarkable strength of character in the last phase of his life, I came to wonder: Could it be that a stance of faith-grounded optimism is in fact superior to one of worldly pessimism or sophisticated fatalism?

  
  
• MSM Falls Down on Job of Reporting Snow's Catholic Faith , by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia -- strange how the press can remember and quote Snow's White House salary but neglect to mention his religious faith?
  
• Update - From President Bush's eulogy for Tony Snow:

  The day Tony was born was also the day that many of his fellow Catholics pay tribute to Saint Justin. Justin was also a gifted thinker and writer, and a powerful witness for the Christian faith. Because of his beliefs, he suffered many times of trial, and in the year 165 A.D. he was arrested. Before he received a sentence of death, he was asked: "If you are killed, do you suppose you will go to heaven?" Justin replied: "I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it."
  

  
  Tony Snow knew that, as well. That brought him great peace. When talking about the struggle he waged so admirably, he said that no matter how bad times may sometimes seem, "God doesn't promise tomorrow, he does promise eternity."
  

  
  And so today we send this man of faith and character and joy on his final journey. Tony Snow has left the City of Washington for the City of God. May he find eternal rest in the arms of his Savior. And may the Author of all creation watch over his family and all those who loved him, admired him, and will always cherish his memory.

  
  

Limbaugh Announces Phase II of Operation Chaos

He is "ordering" his millions of listeners to participate in various nationwide meetings being held by Democrats to get average citizens to help write the Democrat platform prior to the August national convention (see ABC News link). Why can't pro-life voters attend and demand a pro-life plank? Why can't people favoring traditional marriage attend and give their input? This election is going to be fun.

Plain Truths We Can't Forget on Immigration

Obama clarifies remarks on “mental distress” and late-term abortion; NARAL dismisses controversy as "much ado about nothing"

Last week there was something of a stir among abortion supporters when their Democratic presidential candidate of choice -- in an interview with a Christian magazine -- appeared to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions.

In a press availabilty on his campaign plane today on the flight from Butte, Mont. to St. Louis, Obama clarified his remarks on mental-health exceptions to late-term abortions -- The Chicago Tribune provides the complete transcript as provided by Obama's campaign:

Reporter: You said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion?

Obama: "My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.

I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign's senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.

"Mental distress is not an illness." Douglass said. "He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

In "Obama walks the abortion minefield", Politico examines the aftermath of Obama's remarks to Relevant magazine and his further clarification. Confident in Obama's commitment, NARAL professed their satisfaction and dismissed the the controversy as "much ado about nothing."

Pro-lifers won't rest that easily.

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

(Hat tip: Fumare)

Professor Hadley Arkes writes at The Catholic Thing on the "madness" of Prof. Doug Kmiec's Obama love:

Is it a certain madness, a certain distraction of mind, induced by the sudden onset of summer heat? The polls in early June find Barack Obama notably behind among Evangelicals and whites, but--wonder of wonders--actually holding a slight edge, of a point or two, among Catholics.

Some of our readers know that I was associated with the drafting of the “most modest first step of all on abortion,” the bill to preserve the life of the child who survived an abortion. It was called, in that awful legislative style, the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act. When it finally passed the Congress in 2002, not a single Democrat in Congress voted in opposition. But Barack Obama, as a Senator in Illinois, actually led the opposition to the comparable measure in that state, and as the chairman of a legislative committee managed to kill it. How does one explain then this close division among Catholics, with a tilt actually in his favor? And what is the worse account: that most Catholics in the country simply do not know about his radical, pro-abortion position, or that American Catholics by now have heard about Obama’s position, and they don’t especially care?

The latter account would surely mark the graver state of affairs. And the signs seem to be pointing in that direction, as seen in the positions reported recently for two prominent Catholic academics, both thoughtful, sensible people, moving in those circles I move in myself. Douglas Kmiec, a good friend, had been Dean of the Law School at Catholic University and Cathleen Kaveny, is a professor of law at Notre Dame. Kmiec joined a meeting of Catholics with Obama and pronounced him a “natural for the Catholic vote.” Kmiec became persuaded that Obama, radically pro-choice, would nevertheless be open to serious measures for “reducing the number of abortions.” Kaveny could hardly be unaware of Obama’s position on abortion, and yet she thinks that other parts of Obama’s program would fit a Catholic vision--most notably, "ending the unjust war in Iraq, providing decent jobs, ensuring affordable health care for all, and working for comprehensive immigration reform."

On the matter of reducing the number of abortions, imagine that there is a wondrous scheme for diverting women from choosing abortions: Let’s suppose that, in counseling centers, we find that playing “You’d be So Nice to Come Home To” had the wondrous effect of stirring 90 per cent of the women not to abort their babies--especially if the music is accompanied by the offer of a DVD player. Surely it would be a boon to save those lives, but we should tremble at what the move reveals about the terms of principle on which we live our lives together. For what is left intact is the understanding, deeply absorbed by our people, that there is nothing less than a “right” to order the killing of an innocent human being for reasons that need not rise beyond convenience or whims, and with no felt need even to offer a justification. To offer this state of affairs as a gain is to celebrate a law that has the most pronounced effect in misshaping the souls of our people.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Obama Set to Reignite Communion Controversy by Picking Sebelius as VP Nominee?

Dave Hartline of The Catholic Report links to a couple of stories indicating that Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-abortion Catholic Governor of Kansas, still seems to be on top of Obama's short list for Veep:

"Praise for Sebelius"

"Obama veepstakes: The other woman"

As Dave notes (and as I've noted previously), picking Sebelius is definitely a risky strategy for a campaign that has gone to great lengths to try to win over Catholic voters. Sebelius' bishop, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, has made public his instructions to her that she should refrain from receiving Communion over her pro-abortion stance. Picking her would be seen by many Catholics as Obama's sticking it to the Church hierarchy over the issue of abortion.

Such a pick would definitely ignite what some pundits have blasphemously dubbed the "wafer watch", since every Mass at which Sebelius was in attendance would turn into a media circus. Reporters and photographers would love to catch Sebelius receiving Communion in defiance of her bishop.

If you thought the media attention given to John Kerry's Mass attendance in 2004 was distracting, just wait until the media focuses their attention on a Catholic whose actions in receiving Communion would actually be in defiance of her own bishop's admonitions to refrain from doing so (something that was never the case with John Kerry).

More From Mexico

The U.S. has come a long way when a Presidential candidate can appear with Our Lady of Guadalupe during campaign season. Happy 4th of July! (Photo source link.)

Camp Victory, Baghdad: Happy Fourth

Caption from N.Y. Times:

About 1,200 American service members from all branches of the military attended a re-enlistment ceremony at Camp Victory in Baghdad.

Photo: Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Blogger Comment:

They are helping to consolidate democracy and religious freedom in the very geographic heart of the Moslem Middle East after accomplishing their mission of removing a genocidal, bloodthirsty dictator. They are keeping us safe from extremist attacks at home by taking the battle to the enemy. May God protect our military today and always.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI on the American Founding

From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations. ...

Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.

Excerpts from the White House Welcoming Ceremony Pope Benedict XVI (Apostolic visit to the United States April 16, 2008).

* * *

You represent a nation that plays a crucial role in world events today. The United States carries a weighty and far-reaching responsibility, not only for the well-being of its own people, but for the development and destiny of peoples throughout the world. With a deep sense of participation in the joys and hopes, the sorrows, anxieties, and aspirations of the entire human family, the Holy See is a willing partner in every effort to build a world of genuine peace and justice for all. ...

The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.

The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."

Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: "Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth." Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.

John Paul II on the American Experiment - excerpts from Pope John Paul II's words to the Honorable Lindy Boggs as Ambassador to the Holy See on December 16, 1997.

Obama spins his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act

In his interview with the Evangelical Relevant magazine, Obama addressed his motivations for voting against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

So, the reason Obama didn't vote for the legislation was that there was already a law in place mandating that medical treatment would provide the unborn survivor of a botched abortion? -- If so, exactly what was the need for the bill? -- And how does this square with his exact words that day? Let's check the Illinois Senate transcript:

"A previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it" - Obama

Let's examine Obama's stated reason for opposing the "Born Alive" act, as he conveyed on the Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

SENATOR OBAMA:

Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns of your -- you raised and that were raised by eyewitnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were allowed to deliver in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little but further and I want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a -- a child, a nine month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean it, -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try and keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. ...

I think it's important to recognize that though this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by the hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think it will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. As a consequence, I'll be voting Present.

So let me get this straight: Obama opposes the bill because it would

• mandate that a previable fetus (who survives a botched abortion) is "entitled to the same kinds of protections that would be provided a child -- a nine month child -- that was delivered to term"
  
• would for that reason forbid abortions to take place (and jeopordize Roe v. Wade)
  
• places "a BURDEN on the doctor ... to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible, and give them medical attention as is necessary to try and keep that child alive"
  

Sorry Barack, but I just don't see how you can spin this.

McCain Receives Blessing at Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City

Source link (note that the reporter is not familiar with the account of the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe).

Is Obama REALLY supportive of faith-based programs?

• The Associated Press reports that "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith".
  

  
  

• Cause for celebration? -- Not so fast, says Jay Anderson.
  

Obama the Phony: Hypocrisy and Failure in Urban Housing Policy

Here is a Washington Post excerpt describing the home of Sen. Obama in Chicago:

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Source link (emphasis added).

There's more:

The couple wanted to step up from their $415,000 condo. They chose a house with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.

Source link.

Then there is the Rezko link:

Obama's house purchase has been a source of controversy. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that on the day of the closing, the wife of Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko closed on an adjoining lot that had been the estate's side yard.

The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the full asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard.

Tony Rezko already had been linked to a grand jury investigation involving public corruption. Last month, he was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government.

Source link.

There sure is a lot of "audacity" in the Obama rush to elite living. But there is precious little "hope" for those left behind.

To see the lack of real hope for those left behind contrast the above lavish personal lifestyle with the results of Obama's housing policy in his own state senate district in Chicago. Note that the source is the liberal Boston Globe describing a housing development in Obama's district based on Obama's housing policy (which he is now taking to the national stage):

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.

Source link.

And, yes, there is the typical cronyism in addition to the old, failed liberal approach to urban housing for the poor:

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Source link.

Yesterday, even liberal NPR had a story on the Boston Globe exposé. What we see here is a pattern I have seen in other parts of the United States: elitist liberals push failed policies on the poor that damage the surrounding neighborhoods, while the elitist liberals live comfortably in upscale comfort shielded from the blight fostered by their very own failed policies. Obama is not offering change. He is offering the same old failed, urban-destroying policies of the past while living a lavish personal lifestyle of privilege. It's the same pattern you see in the liberal opposition to school vouchers: the refusal to empower the urban poor, while elitist liberals send their kids to plush private schools. The blight, the ineffective government programs, and the cronyism and potential for corruption are typical of the Third World reality in many American cities. America deserves better than that.

The more you learn the details and facts about Obama, the worse things look. I have to compliment the liberal media for daring to get the facts and presenting them. Obama is looking more like a phony with each passing day. If McCain can expose the phoniness, we are looking at another Republican President.