Sen. Brownback Considers Bid for U.S. Presidency

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a 'full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative' and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats' strong gains in this month's midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

'It does not make it less likely,' he said in an interview. 'I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.' . . .

'I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,' Brownback said. 'I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.'

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Source: Kansas Republican Eyes Presidential Bid, by Sam Hananel. Associated Press. (Via RedState.

More Brownback info from Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia

I support the U.S. Catholic Bishops on Iraq

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on.

Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.

President Bush's Choice for Family Planning Post Criticized

According to the Washington Post, liberals aren't very happy with President Bush's appointment for the head of the family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services:

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday. . . .

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

Deal Hudson on "What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives"

Deal Hudson brings another perspective to the elections (What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives Nov. 15, 2006:

In a national conference call with religious conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback said that President Bush squandered the mandate of the 2004 election by pursuing social security reform when he could have taken action on an important social issue, such as the federal marriage issue.

He also rejected the idea that the election represented a repudiation of social conservatism because the Democrats who were recruited to beat incumbent Republicans were precisely that, social conservatives! Six of the Democrat freshmen are pro-life -- the biggest group since the eighties.

Pro-abortion Republicans, Brownback pointed out, were the biggest losers. A dozen of them are not coming back and that represents about half their total. Congressional Democrats, as a result of who won, are slightly more conservative than before, while Republicans are significantly more conservative.

Patrick Hynes, author of In Defense of the Religious Right, asked Sen. Brownback what religious conservatives can learn from their five losses on ballot questions: Arizona's same-sex marriage amendment, California's parental notification initiative; Oregon's parental notification initiative; Missouri's embryonic stem cell and human cloning initiative; and South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sen. Brownback stated that in Missouri, social conservatives were out-spent 20-to-1 and every major Republican state office holder, including the governor, supported the measure. Nevertheless, the measure only passed with 50.3 percent of the vote.

Regarding South Dakota, Sen. Brownback suggested that going for the full ban with no exceptions for rape and incest may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, he applauded the initiative as a courageous effort to launch an important national debate.

Sen. Brownback agreed that the failure to pass the same-sex marriage amendment in Arizona is of great concern. Arizona, he said, became the first state in the country to reject such a ban by democratic means. Sen. Brownback echoed a previously expressed sentiment that religious conservatives need to work especially hard in the interior west Sunbelt region to counter a vibrant libertarian sentiment. . . .READ THE REST

Republicans Chastened in Typical 6th Year Mid-Term Election

The election results as of this hour follow. Democrats gain 27 seats in the House and so control. Now, the House consists of 229 Democrats to 198 Republicans. Republicans can win the House again with new leadership and with dynamic, forceful, and imaginative opposition to the Democrat lunacy you can expect over the next two years. One key factor last night that the media will likely not focus on: the Democrats won in some places by running candidates with conservative Republican views. That means that in some districts where Democrats gained seats conservatism still is the reigning political philosophy. It will be interesting to see if House Republicans can form a strategic alliance with those conservative "Democrats," as was done during the Reagan years.


Senate control is still undecided. It looks like the results in Montana will decide if we get a Republican Senate to review the next Supreme Court nomination. Pray for Montana. The big shocker last night was the loss in Missouri. The great blessing in the Senate races was the win in Tennessee. So, as of now, the Senate numbers are 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats, with 2 undecided (Virginia and Montana). The other big disappointment last night was the apparent loss of Michael Steele for Maryland Senate. Steele would have been a great addition to the Senate as an African-American Republican. The Republican Party deserves credit for recruiting him as a candidate and for also recruiting African-American candidates for governor in Ohio and Pennsylvania. One day we will break the dysfunctional Democratic stranglehold on the African-American vote.


My observations on the election:


1. It's time, as noted before, for dynamic and forceful opposition based on a consistent, bold conservative philosophy. The Democrats offer nothing constructive for the nation. It will be easy to expose that.


2. Build a working alliance with new and old conservative Democrats in the House, as in the Reagan era.


3. Put pressure on the Iraqis to stop the sectarian fighting soon, or seriously consider partition once and for all. With partition, the U.S. can support its real allies in Iraq and take specific aim at its enemies (those who harbor terrorists), instead of continuing to wait on dysfunctional Iraqi politicians to get their act together. Partition may be the key to separating the sheep from the goats and thus bring clarity to the conflict. Partition may also deny terrorists the chance to take over an intact nation-state with great oil wealth.


4. Note that a two bans on "gay marriage" passed-- in Tennessee and in Virginia. Also, note that a conservative Christian Republican Sarah Palin won the Senate seat in Alaska against a veteran Democratic politician. She is a great fresh face for true conservatives. And, speaking of true conservatives, it is a good thing that a Republican liberal like Chafee lost in Rhode Island. It's a welcome purging of a pro-abortion Republican. Also, note that in Michigan, a proposal to ban traditional affirmative action approaches passed. That means that public institutions will be forced to find creative ways to help the economically disadvantaged of all races without creating racial conflict. The fact that Michigan, a state that tilts Democratic, passed the ban is a sign that we need to leave racial preferences behind in the quest for social justice. School vouchers are the best way to attain the just goals of genuine affirmative action. So Republican losses don't necessarily mean a defeat for conservatism.


5. Now is a great opportunity for the President to come out swinging and take bold, challenging initiatives. He will hold a news conference today at 1 p.m. The losses for the Republicans in the sixth year of a Republican White House are historically typical for the incumbent party. It's the typical price you pay for winning the presidency twice in a row. The presidency is worth that price. Here is the historical perspective from a Washington Post article from earlier this year (January 29, 2006):


History appears to favor the Democrats. Midterm elections in the sixth year of a two-term presidency have proved particularly difficult for the party in the White House. Republicans suffered significant losses in the midterm elections of 1958, 1974 and 1986, the sixth year of presidency for Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively. Democrats took a bath in 1966, the sixth year of the combined administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.


But there was a notable anomaly. In 1998, aided by public backlash against Republican calls for impeachment, Democrats gained seats in the House and held even in the Senate in Bill Clinton's sixth year in office.

Whether that was an aberration or the disintegration of the pattern of the "six-year itch" will not be clear until November. Nor will it be clear, even if the Democrats gain nominal ground in November, whether that signals a broader shift away from the Republicans that could carry over to 2008 or was merely an outcome typical of midterm elections.


"Bush's Midterm Challenge," Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2006, by Dan Balz, at this link.


Adversity breeds character, initiative, boldness, dynamism, and clarity. Take the gift and run with it.

Elections 2006

Just a brief roundup of posts, perhaps updated as the evening progresses. Oswald Sobrino has a post as well. And of course ongoing election night chatter from the National Review.

• Voting with Michael Steele, by Sonny Bunch. Weekly Standard Nov. 7, 2006, on the woes of being a Black Conservative Republican:

  Standing in line to vote with his wife, the pair wearing matching blue Under Armour windbreakers, Steele was surrounded by folks who clearly had no desire to vote for him. They made snide comments behind his back. "They're just trying to trick us, but we know better," exclaimed one elderly woman. She went on to explain that Steele's great "trick" was not cutting to the front, but instead choosing to stand in line like everyone else. . . .

• For Orson Scott Card, there is only one issue this election day RealClear Politics Nov. 6, 2006:

  [A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

  But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

  (Response & discussion over at Jimmmy Akin's)

• Paul Zummo ("The Cranky Conservative") mirrors my thoughts -- "Ideologically this election is a clear choice.":

  Steele is a true blue, Catholic conservative. I was impressed by him the first time I saw him speak at a Knight of Columbus gathering last winter. He's an engaging speaker who has full command of the political scene, and he's on the same page as me on the issues that truly matter. So, there was never any doubt as to whether or not I would vote for him.

  But as the campaign has progressed, it's become much more important to me to see him win. This morning I saw a picture of Ben Cardin, and I think it was the first time I had seen his face during the campaign. That should give you an indication of the absolutely atrocious campaign that the invisible man has run. On the other hand, Steele has run one of the most magnificent campaigns I have ever observed. Sure, the puppy add might have been a bit of fluff, but it was also a smart ad that showed that Steele was a little different from the rest. His campaign has accentuated the positive, a stark contrast to Cardin, and especially the pathetic Webb-Allen fiasco (more on that in a second).

  Cardin's basic line of attack is basically to accuse Steele of actually liking George Bush. While that sort of campaign makes copious amounts of sense in a heavily Democratic state, and I can't really blame Cardin for taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity, the lack of substance truly aggravates me. On every level I want Steele to pull this out.

• Domenico Bettinelli, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a choice (Whither the Catholic Voter?" ):

  There’s the dark warning that if you don’t go to the polls and vote for your Republican candidate, then the evil Democrats will win. On the other hand, what if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two on issues that matter to me? In Massachusetts, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and effectively pro-gay marriage. (The Republican supports civil unions which are gay marriage in all but name.) So what’s left? Taxes?

The Wall Street Journal is providing An hour-by-hour guide to tonight's Election results. Stay tuned. . . .

Seven principles to use in the public square

What we claim to believe as Christians must inform all aspects of our lives.

by Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

In his comments to the 2006 Gospel of Life conference on Oct. 28, Archbishop Chaput outlined seven simple principles that Catholics should use to inform their actions in the public square — this year and every year, whether elections loom or not.

1. Relationships have consequences. If we claim to love someone or believe something, we should act accordingly. A married man should be faithful to his wife all the time, every day, in every way. In like manner, a baptized person should seek to be faithful to Jesus Christ all the time, every day, in every way.

2. Jesus gave us the Church as our mother and teacher. She speaks for Jesus Christ and teaches in His name. Therefore, we owe the same fidelity to the Church that we owe to Christ.

3. Jesus told us to “make disciples of all nations” and to be “leaven in the world.” The Epistle of James tells us to be “doers of [God’s] word, and not hearers only,” and that “faith without works is dead.” What we claim to believe as Christians, we need to then prove by our actions — in every aspect of our lives; our families, our friendships, our work and business dealings, and also in our political choices. Otherwise we’re just lying to ourselves and others.

4. Catholic teaching has two basic principles we should use in judging every public issue: First, does this issue advance the dignity of the individual human person; and second, does this issue promote the common good? We can never choose one of these principles to the exclusion of the other. We need to follow both. A public policy can’t truly serve the common good if it violates, or allows to be violated, the sanctity of someone’s fundamental human rights, from conception to natural death.

5. We should bring our faith to bear on all public issues. But not all public issues are equal. Many are important. But some, like the right to life itself, are foundational.

6. As Catholics, we need to think and vote according to our consciences. But a human “conscience” doesn’t suddenly happen out of thin air. It needs to be cultivated, grow and be formed in the light of truth, so that we can understand the difference between good and evil in a genuinely Christian way. Conscience is never simply a matter of personal opinion or preference. It’s not what we want to do, but what we know we should do because of God’s truth in our hearts. We discover that truth by thinking and praying seriously over what Christ’s Church teaches, and trying to conform our actions to her moral guidance.

7. Jesus tells us to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That means we have a serious duty to respect and appropriately serve public authority. But Jesus doesn’t tell us how much actually belongs to Caesar — and in fact, all of the important things about our lives belong not to Caesar, but to God. God should always come first. When we seek first to be “faithful citizens” of our real and ultimate home — heaven — then we naturally become better citizens of this world, because we become sources of virtue and character and justice for the people around us, even when our message is unpopular. The more truly and faithfully we live as Catholics, the more truly and faithfully we serve our nation’s best ideals and deepest needs.

Pope Benedict Outraged by Actions of Pro-Life Catholic Laity.

Perked your curiousity? -- Check out Fumare.

A Roundup . . .

A few stories -- some dated, others recent -- which caught my eye in the past several months . . .

• Bishop Doran on . . . Everything. Amy Welborn's Open Book - a discussion of the column by Bishop Doran of Rockford, IL, and the now-famous excerpt:

  Many of the issues that confront us are serious, and we know by now that the political parties in our country are at loggerheads as to how to solve them. We know, for instance, that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people.
  

  The seven “sacraments” of their secular culture are abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation. These things they unabashedly espouse, profess and promote. Their continuance in public office is a clear and present danger to our survival as a nation.
  

  Since the mid-1940s we have been accustomed to look askance at Germans. They were protagonists of the Second World War and so responsible for fifty million deaths. We say, “How awful,” and yet in our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of forty million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day. They have done their best to make ours a true culture of death. No doubt, we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.

  
  
• Fr. Martin Fox (Bonfire of the Vanities) asks: Can the Church excommunicate pro-abort pols?:

  . . . So, I got thinking: if the bishops together -- or a particular bishop -- were to do this, how would it work? (Can anyone tell me if any bishop in the U.S. has actually done this? I mean, actually excommunicated anyone over a public policy position, such as abortion or related issues?)

  
  
• Hope vs. Despair: Remembering Terri Schiavio, by Fr. Rob Johansen. National Review Online. March 31, 2006.
  

• Maggie Ghallager on "Why electing Rick Santorum matters" TownHall Oct. 18, 2006:

  Here's the one thing I know about Bob Casey: I don't know much about what he would actually do, because that's the way Bob Casey likes to run his campaign.
  

  Here's the one thing I know about Rick Santorum: Nobody in America has earned the undying hatred of the hard left for his courage in standing up and fighting for basic American values, whether it's the value of every single human life, or the importance of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

  
  
• A fake-"Catholic Voter Guide" has been published by the Democrats, reports John-Henry Westen for LifeSiteNews.com:

  An attempt to recapture the Catholic vote has been launched by Democratic supporters. A new 2006 Voter Guide has been put out by "Catholic in Alliance for the Common Good" (CACG) a group headed up by Alexia Kelley who in 2004 worked as a religion advisor to John Kerry in the closing weeks of his campaign. . . .

  Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia) has compiled a roundup of posts on the 'Dueling Voting Guides'.
  

• From Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae):

  Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix has published online a new booklet entitled Catholics in the Public Square, the first of a series on various hot Catholic topics to be published by major American prelates. Here's the first line of the Zenit story where I learned about this: "All Catholics have a duty to bring faith to the forefront of political debates..." (Giving Politics a Faith Lift Zenit News Oct. 15, 2006)

  
  
• Cardinal McCarrick Continues to Conceal Rome's Insistence that Pro-Abort Politicians Be Denied Communion - Part I; Part II, by John Henry Western. LifeSiteNews.com Oct. 23, 2006. Western takes aim at McCarrick's "habitual" neglect of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the US Bishops, pointing out that obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.
  

  McCarrick, who headed a USCCB commitee to investigate the matter (which deliberated for several years ), revisited the issue recently in an October 17th address to Canadian bishops:

  The "Communion issue," Cardinal McCarrick told the Canadian bishops last Tuesday, "became ground zero in the struggle to identify 'the real Catholic Church' in the United States." A significant portion of his speech was devoted to the "attacks" bishops on either side of the debate received.
  

  Without mentioning its name, Cardinal McCarrick singled out the largest Catholic pro-life group in the US, American Life League (ALL). "I was a target of some of this criticism. At first, it disturbed me when a full-page ad was taken out in a local newspaper attacking me," he said of an ALL ad campaign. He added: "A short time later, however, at the time of one of the USCCB general meetings, a full-page ad appeared attacking all of the Bishops of the United States for not uniformly denying Holy Communion. At that point I felt that I was in good company. Finally, the same groups publicly attacked me together with the then Cardinal Ratzinger, which made me even more convinced I was in good company!"
  

  In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com ALL President Judie Brown responded to Cardinal McCarrick's allegations. "His spin is very interesting because none of our ads have attacked him or any other bishop," said Brown. "We simply asked them and continue to repeatedly ask them to enforce canon law 915. That isn't an attack, that's their job, and asking a bishop or a cardinal to do their job is not an attack." Speaking of the ad which included Cardinal Ratzinger, Brown explained, "The ad that put him in the 'company' of Cardinal Ratzinger, simply asked a question of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, which of these men is presenting the truth."

  The document which the US Bishops task force headed by Cardinal McCarrick finally put out called Catholics in Political Life had some very good points and received praise from the pro-life community. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062102.html) The document also was acceptable to the Vatican and then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the US Bishops Conference to note that the document was "very much in harmony" with his general principles.

  
  

Barone on House Elections

Here is the link to the Michael Barone Blog. Barone, as regular readers of my blog know, is my favorite political analyst (he also has a Michigan connection since he grew up in the Detroit suburbs). Barone sees a close House election with ultimate control resting on turn-out and possibly--quite interestingly--on some conservative Democrats refusing to vote for a Speaker Pelosi. I wouldn't be surprised to see some conservative Democrats switching to Republican if the results are very close. So two practical things to consider: first, go out and vote Republican and remind other pro-life voters to make sure they vote Republican on November 7th, and, second, don't believe the liberal media hype about a Democrat "wave" election. Most important of all: pray that the pro-life party retains control of all of Congress.

What Some "Catholic" Universities Allow (Warning: Graphic Language; Don't Read If You Don't Want to be Upset)

With great reluctance, I reprint a portion of an opinion column by David Brooks that appeared in the Op-Ed section of the N.Y. Times on Thursday, October 5, 2005. I say great reluctance because I have a strong distaste for the vulgar. But I also have a strong distate for denial. Catholicism in America is shot through with great denial of many highly dysfunctional realities. That's why we got the explosive scandals that, in my opinion, have been addressed internally only because of the financial pressure of lawsuits. You could write a treatise and a research project on the roots of this strong strain of psychological denial in U.S. Catholicism.

For years now, several Catholic colleges and universities have hosted the performance of a pornographic play by Eve Ensler called "The Vagina Monologues." Most famously, Rev. John Jenkins, the current president of Notre Dame University, viewed the play and decided to let it continue to be shown on campus. Here is a description of the situation at Notre Dame from the school's own website:

In February [2006], Jenkins attended a student performance of “The Vagina Monologues” and a student-faculty panel discussion that followed. “These panels taught me and perhaps taught others that the creative contextualization of a play like ‘The Vagina Monologues’ can bring certain perspectives on important issues into a constructive and fruitful dialogue with the Catholic tradition,” Jenkins wrote April 5. “This is a good model for the future,” he said. “Accordingly, I see no reason to prohibit performances of ‘The Vagina Monologues’ on campus, and do not intend to do so.” The permission for future performances drew immediate criticism from Bishop John M. D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend who said he was “deeply saddened by the decision.” He had previously asked that performances be ended.

From Notre Dame University website at this link: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=16904 (from an article dated April 14, 2006).

Other "Catholic" colleges and universities, including D.C.'s Georgetown University (the oldest Catholic college in the U.S.), also host the play (see this April 3, 2006, article [PDF file] in Catholic World Report). You need to know what these so-called Catholic institutions are hosting. If you don't want to be upset, stop reading this post now. Here is the description of the play, with no further comment by me, straight out of the nation's premier daily newspaper:

[The play includes an approving scene about a predator,] a secretary, who invited a 13-year-old girl [the play has since been revised to make the girl 16 years old] from her neighborhood into her car and kissed her. Then she invited the girl up to her apartment, gave her some vodka, took off her underwear and gave her a satin teddy to wear. Then she had sex with the girl, which was interrupted when the girl's mother called. Then she made the girl masturbate in front of her and taught her some new techniques.

"A Tear in Our Fabric," by David Brooks, N.Y. Times, Op-Ed
Section, Oct. 5, 2006 (available free in print version only).

The Elections

I vaguely recall that Teddy Roosevelt once said something about being in the ring, about not standing off to the side, and instead joining the fray. Such a statement would have been characteristic of the ball of energy that was Teddy Roosevelt. Here is the full quote from the Theodore Roosevelt Association website:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.

I think we need more Teddy Roosevelts among Catholics and other Christians. The Church calls lay Catholics to be involved in politics. Such involvement means at least in part that we must pray about politics. It's time to start praying.

The media is now full of dire predictions about Republican losses in Congress in the upcoming Nov. 7th elections. I won't believe it until I see it. If indeed these great losses materialize--losses that the biased liberal media is panting for and actively campaigning for in its coverage and timing of its paid polls, then we know that God will draw a greater good out of them.

But in the meantime, I say again: start praying. Pray in your own words. I pray this: that the pro-life party, the Republican Party, may win and retain control of both the House and the Senate so that more pro-life judges can be appointed on the Supreme Court and on other courts and so that pro-death legislation relating to embryonic research can continue to be blocked. May they win so that the ambitious gay agenda can be blocked. May they win so that further restrictions can be placed on the hourly massacre on the unborn and partially born that is abortion. May they win so that we retain the will to fight the forces of evil out to destroy anyone who does not bow the knee to Islam. May they win so that those who want to spread the demonic contraception mentality of self-prostitution to more and more young people will not gain power.

As laity, we are obligated to be politically involved. Our greatest weapon is our prayer. But too often we have been deceived into thinking that, although many pray (sometimes even during the liturgy) for the victory of an athletic team, we cannot pray for the victory of a specific political party. Speaking for myself, I feel obligated in conscience to pray for the victory on November 7th of the Republican Party for all the reasons you already knew and that I have repeated above to remind us. As Teddy Roosevelt would have said, this is no time to adopt an Olympian indifference or air of distant, pious superiority.

The Democrats offer no sane alternative. They retain the pro-death, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay agenda they have embraced now for years. They are lying low and trying to win on the sly by not revealing their true agenda. Let's make sure they don't get the chance to start again the social engineeering that has gutted the national moral character of an entire nation since the late sixties.

Election Day November 7th

As a lay Catholic, I am ready to take a stand on the upcoming Congressional elections on Nov. 7th. Vote Republican. There is only one major party in America today that will protect the unborn, defy the "gay marriage" agenda, assist educational efforts to turn the tide against the contraception/promiscuity culture that is foisted on young people, embrace school vouchers (the most effective social justice , anti-discrimination, and anti-poverty program in America), and support faith-based social action programs against the epidemic of substance abuse in our country. In addition to these social justice issues (yes, the struggle against abortion, the contraception mentality, and the gay agenda is a social justice matter because justice demands obeying the truth about human dignity denied by abortion, the contraception mentality, and the gay agenda), as American citizens, we also face the threat of an Islamist war to destroy us. Only the Republicans will persist in fighting the enemy with whatever it takes at home and abroad. If you want a socially just domestic culture and taking the offensive against Islamic radicalism, then vote Republican.

There is no "social justice" agenda different from the efforts to take on the above social issues. What liberals offer is more of the same tired old social programs that keep people in dependency, many times in a dependency marked by substance abuse. What liberals offer is encouraging the current promiscuity among many by continuing to push the contraception mentality among rising generations. What liberals offer is a blank check to the gay agenda. Notice, incidentally, how the Democrats are not focused on the immorality of the actual behavior of the Florida congressman in the current House page e-mail/instant message scandal: the Democrats are just focused on trying to exploit the scandal for electoral purposes. The liberal Democrats will never condemn the "gay" fascination with pursuing teenage males. In fact, one Democratic congressman in the nineteen eighties was merely censured (reprimanded) by the Democratic-controlled Congress for engaging in sexual acts with a minor in the House page program. That Democrat, unlike the just resigned Republican congressman who apparently did not engage in sexual acts with a minor, kept his Massachusetts congressional seat for many more years thereafter after being protected by the Democratic congressional leadership in the eighties.

There is a focused, calculated media assault prominently led by the N.Y. Times to get a Democratic-controlled Congress. A Democratic Congress would be a disaster for the domestic health of the nation and for the offensive against Islamic terrorists. A Democratic Senate would be a disaster for future appointments to the Supreme Court. So, on Nov. 7th, vote Republican if you want to see your country not go further down the path of the benighted, secularized nations of Western Europe. If you don't want the U.S. to become another France addicted to domestic amorality and appeasement abroad, vote for the Republican candidate in your local elections on November 7th. Don't fall for the mainstream media campaign to distract from the real Democratic agenda of more secularization and of appeasement.

John Kerry Speaks out on Catholic Faith

Revisiting a subject of the 2004 Presidential race, John Kerry gave a speech on his Catholic faith (Kerry Talks of Loss, Renewal of His Catholic Faith, Washington Post Sept. 9, 2006):

In a speech he said he wishes he had given before the 2004 presidential election, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday described his religious life in greater candor and detail than ever before.

Kerry said in Malibu, Calif., that he "wandered in the wilderness" after the Vietnam War but came back to the Roman Catholic Church after a sudden and moving revelation in the late 1980s.

Here is the text of the speech. Naturally the queestion of abortion is raised, and the Senator hasn't budged a bit: nary a mention of the incompatibility of reconciling his staunch Catholic faith with his staunch support of Roe v. Wade. (Via Amy Welborn, whose blog already features a bevy of responses).

Update! - Good commentary from Insight Scoop's Carl Olson as well.

Q: Can you be Catholic and a Democrat?

Former Democratic Committee Chairman asks, can you be Catholic and a Democrat?

Manchester, N.H, Sep. 15, 2006 (CNA) - David Carlin has been a Democrat nearly his entire life. The former Rhode Island State Senator and Chairman of his local Democratic Party, began voting for Democrats in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected the first Catholic President of the United States. Nearly 50 years later Carlin is still a registered Democrat, but has written a book wondering if his Catholicism can still be reconciled with the party of his youth.

Carlin, who even received his party’s nomination for a U.S. Congressional seat in 1992, told the Catholic News Agency that he was motivated to write his new book, Can a Catholic be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion after years of frustration with his changing party.

While he notes that the power and leadership of the party has been shifting for years, Carlin now wonders if reconciliation between his faith and his party is possible any more. . . .

Source: Catholic News Agency. Sept. 15, 2006.

“How a Non-Catholic respectfully communes at Mass” - The Anchoress has a great post on the "communion etiquette" of President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at Mass, and . . . news that Cardinal O’ Connor and the USCCB was targeted for surveillance by the Clinton Administration's VAAPCON (the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force).

Read all about it.

The Overlooked Question on Hispanic Immigration

In our social debates, of course, we get all caught up in numbers: asking how many are coming in, how much money is this costing. It's part of our scientific, bookkeeping modern Western culture. But, sometimes, when all the empirical, numerical questions are asked and even answered we may have forgotten to ask the most important question: who? For Catholics and other Christians, "who" is a more important question to ask than questions about numbers. Our scale of priorities is and should be radically different from that of our technological, secular culture.

That focus on "who" is why when it came to Terri Schiavo, we did not just ask how much it cost to keep her alive. We focused on who she was: a human being with as much dignity as anyone else. We also focus on "who" when it comes to abortion. We don't focus on the economic burden on the mother. We focus on who the child is: a human person of equal dignity with the mother.

I submit that when considering Hispanic immigration we ask the "who" question more, and not just focus on numbers and statistics. Who are these, mostly darker, people streaming over our borders? They are members of the only culture on earth that I know of which names its male children "Jesus," after the Son of God.

I know of no other culture on the planet where children are intentionally named "Jesus" to signify the Son of God. All of which reminds me as a Catholic Christian of a very famous question: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4; RSV). Saul then immediately asked the "who" question: "Who are you, Lord?" Before we get on our high horses and start going after the Hispanic poor coming across the border with the zeal of the Pharisee Saul, we had better meditate first on that famous and prophetic biblical dialogue. The "who" question and the related biblical question about persecution from Acts may be the most important questions for Catholics and other Christians to ask in the entire immigration debate.

As Catholics, our questions naturally overlap with those of our non-believing fellow citizens because we also rightly employ our common reason; but our question lists will, thank God, never be identical. We ask the "who" question when it comes to euthanasia and abortion. We need to ask the personalistic "who" question on immigration also. As Catholics, we always have more to ask. And in the Hispanic immigration debate, the "who" comes, uniquely among all cultures, with the name of "Jesus," the Son of God.

I was against same-sex marriage before I was for it

In an article on Bob Casey Jr.

...Casey, meanwhile, has flip-flopped on adoption of children by gays. (In a 2002 questionnaire submitted to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference -- the state's Catholic bishops organization -- he said he opposed "legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt children." In a 2004 questionnaire submitted to PCC, he reversed course, saying he opposed "legislation prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children.")

...I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't support a constitutional amendment banning it," Casey told The Philadelphia Jewish Voice in October 2005. "However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage."

That position put Casey at odds with the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment, which, like Ohio's, prohibits legal recognition of same-sex unions. The amendment was approved 137-60 in the Pennsylvania statehouse in June, but then stalled in the state senate when it was stripped of the language prohibiting recognition of same sex unions, before passing 38 to 12. (In Pennsylvania, an amendment cannot be placed on the ballot until it has passed both legislative houses in identical form in two consecutive legislative sessions.)

This race has been hailed as one between two pro-life Catholics and it is in fact a good thing that the Democrat saw that they needed to run someone pro-life against Sen. Santorum. For quite a while Casey had been leading Santorum by double-digits, but the gap has recently been closing to be within six points. As of yesterday, finally Bob Casey Jr. has agreed to four debates with Sen. Santorum. His tactic of coasting in without opening his mouth was probably a good idea while he led decisively. But this has failed him in the past in other elections he lost while initially leading. Unfortunately Bob Casey Jr. is no Bob Casey Sr.

Buchanan's Big Blunder

The Drudge Report at this link is publicizing Pat Buchanan's new book which apparently is another jeremiad with this subtitle: "The Third World Invasion & Conquest of America." I have not read the book, but here is a line quoted by the Drudge Report-- and I assume a line made available to the media by the publisher-- as carrying the big marketing punch:

“As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended” (italics added).

Now, from this one line, again which I assume the author and his publisher want to put up front as telling us what the book is about so that we will want to buy the book, we have a big argument for NOT buying the book. This line put forward by the author's media blitz is proof of deep confusion, obtuseness, and ignorance on the part of Buchanan. In a less public forum, I would use a less diplomatic word than obtuseness.

What this quote says is that the enemies of the West are coming over the Rio Grande into America and over the Mediterranean into Europe. As to Europe, I have no argument if Buchanan is referring to the Moslems from North Africa and elsewhere who are crossing the Mediterranean. The Moslems flooding Europe do not share any of the languages or the historic religion of Europe. While Western religion arose from Judaism, Islam came several centuries after the Incarnation. Moslems are, in my view, non-Western, although there have been important intellectual links in past centuries.

But only someone utterly oblivious to the obvious can put the Mexicans and Central Americans on the other side of the Rio Grande in the same non-Western category as the Moslems flooding Europe. I do not believe that Buchanan is a racist, but I do think that a strong case can be made that his analysis of Hispanic immigration does indeed have a racist component. Why?

Let's get to the point: Buchanan is saying that the Mexicans are not part of Western civilization. Why not?

1. Their native language is a Western European language, the language in which the first novel of the Western world was written: Don Quixote by Cervantes. Spanish is a child of Latin, the quintessential language of Western culture for centuries. In fact, in my personal opinion, compared to French and even Italian, Spanish is much closer in form to Latin than these other two Romance languages are.

2. They are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is the mother of Western civilization. The central trunk of Western civilization is Catholic. In the broad scheme of Western history, the Protestant nations of northern Europe are a peripheral offshoot--some might say an aberration--from this main Catholic central trunk of Western culture.

So the Mexicans speak a Western European language closely related to Latin, they are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, yet these are the hordes who signal the end of Western civilization? Forgive me for putting up two other possibilities for Buchanan's view that the Mexican hordes signal the end of the West: 1.) they are poor and 2.) they are dark-skinned.

If Buchanan's objection is poverty, then it is absurd given that it is precisely poor immigrants who have strengthened America. If it is skin color, then Buchanan better make it clear if he wants people to think that Western culture requires a white skin. In my opinion, the promotion of his book implies a racist analysis whether he is aware of it or not. The promotion also explicitly shows great historical ignorance of Western civilization and history. A civilization should have defenders that are familiar with the history of that civilization. Those are the most effective defenders of any civilization.

What Buchanan misses (how could he miss it!) is precisely the big difference, very fortunate for us, between the U.S. and Europe: the immigration problem in the U.S. is Catholic, while that in Europe is Moslem. Now, certainly, immigration is a big problem that must be addressed with a renewed emphasis on law and order and, in my personal opinion, with a guest worker program such as the one we had in the fifties under Eisenhower. But Buchanan does not contribute to a solution by making such an obvious and gigantic cultural and historical blunder in confusing Mexicans with Moslems. Instead of promoting his book, this blunder will lead readers with any basic education to question ever taking the time to read the book. And, even worse and more embarrassing, Buchanan is, I think, of Catholic background--although I would be more certain of that if his last name were Gonzalez or Alvarez.

U.S. News Q&A with Senator Sam Brownback

Q&A with Sen. Sam Brownback, by Dan Gilgoff. U.S. News & World Report August 17, 2006:

Sen. Sam Brownback is widely regarded as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, a label he lived up to recently in vigorously opposing Congress's attempts to provide funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. But the Kansas Republican has made common cause with liberals by drawing attention to the genocide in Darfur and irked some conservatives by championing comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. As he mulls over a presidential bid-he says he'll make the decision soon after the midterm elections-Brownback sat down with U.S. News for a wide-ranging interview. . . .