Not A Third Bush Term, But A Third Clinton Term

No one should be shocked to discover that, in his transition to the presidency, the "inexperienced" former senator from Chicago has turned to the last Democratic administration that had experience in Washington. It seems, however, that the Obama team is doing so big time. Looking at lists of early appointees for the transition period and the administration to come, from Rahm Emanuel on down, you might be forgiven for concluding that Hillary had been elected president in 2008. Clintonistas are just piling up in the prospective corridors of power.

You might also be forgiven for concluding that just about no one else in America had ever had any "experience." Late last week, the website Politico.com did some counting and came up with the following: "Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices." More have been appointed since then, including, as White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, the lawyer who defended Bill Clinton in impeachment hearings, and evidently as Attorney General, Eric Holder, who worked in the Clinton Justice Department. And, of course, everyone in America now knows that Hillary herself is being considered for a cabinet post.

This is change and a "new kind" of politics, or is it old politics repackaged?

President Obama and the American Catholic Bishops

STATEMENT of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

“If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.” (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church’s history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

In the last Congress, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any “interference” in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected “watchman.” (Psalm 127) May God bless him and our country.

National Right to Life Exposes Obama

Obama Distorts His Abortion Record In Third Debate

WASHINGTON -- "On partial-birth abortion and on the rights of infants who survive abortions, Barack Obama's answers in the third presidential debate were highly misleading," commented Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life organization.

-- The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary sources.

-- Because 720 ILCS 510.6 gives complete discretion to the abortionist himself, and because a 1993 consent decree issued by a federal court nullified key provisions (such as the definition of "born alive"), the law was so riddled with loopholes as to be virtually unenforceable even with respect to babies who had clearly achieved the capacity for long-term survival. During Obama's time in the state Senate there were bills (other than the BAIPA) to close some of these loopholes in order to provide more effective protections for post-viable abortion survivors. Obama opposed those bills, too. On April 4, 2002, Obama opposed a bill (SB 1663) that would have more strictly defined the circumstances under which the presence of a second physician (to care for a live-born baby) would be required during a post-viability abortion; Obama argued that this would "burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . [I]t’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."

-- In the debate, Obama said that the state BAIPA "would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade." To evaluate this claim, one must examine the actual language of the BAIPAs. The original 2001 bill was only three sentences long; the third sentence was as follows: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a memo in which it singled out that sentence as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." This claim is consistent with Obama's 2001 argument that a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a person, even when born alive.

-- At the March 13, 2003 committee meeting over which Obama presided, the "immediate protection" clause was removed and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied from the federal BAIPA, which said explicitly that the bill had no bearing on the legal status of any human "prior to being being born alive." Obama then led the committee Democrats in voting down the bill, anyway. For years afterwards, Obama claimed that the state BAIPA had lacked the "neutrality clause," and on August 16, 2008, Obama said that NRLC was "lying" when we said otherwise. This dispute was reviewed by both FactCheck.org and Politifact.org, both of which came down on NRLC's side. To read the original 2001 Illinois BAIPA side-by-side with the amended 2003 version -- both of which Obama voted against -- click here.

-- In the presidential debate, Senator John McCain accurately noted that Obama had opposed Illinois legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. This is true -- indeed, during his primary contest with Hillary Clinton, Obama's supporters presented detailed accounts lauding his leadership in opposing legislation to ban partial-birth abortion, afford legal protection to born-alive babies, and require parental notification for abortion. (Under Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution, the effect of voting "present" on the Illinois Senate floor is exactly the same as voting "no.") In his response to McCain in the debate, Obama said, "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception." Here, Obama packed two distortions into a single sentence. First, Obama is using the phrase "late term" to refer to the third trimester of pregnancy. It has long been established that the great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months; these are babies developed enough to be born alive (hence the term "partial birth"), but are not "late term" in the sense that the phrase is used by pro-abortion advocates. Secondly, the Supreme Court has defined the term "health" to include, in the abortion context, "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient."

-- Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) (S. 1173), which would nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion before "viability" (as defined by the abortionist). The bill would also nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion after viability if deemed to enhance "health." Because the term "health" is not qualified in the bill, no state would be allowed to exclude any "health" justification whatever for post-viability abortions, because to do so would impermissibly narrow a federally guaranteed right. In short, the FOCA would establish a federal "abortion right" broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." The chief sponsors and advocacy groups backing the legislation have acknowledged that it would make partial-birth abortion legal again, nullify state parental notification laws, and require the state and federal governments to fund abortions.

-- Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

-- In the presidential debate, Obama said, "But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together" -- for example, by "helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Yet, Obama advocates cutting off all federal aid to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). Across the nation, CPCs provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. There is a very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's written response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."

********************************

From 'Reproductive Reality Check' (a pro-choice advocacy group) -- the following questions were answered by the Obama campaign.

How does Sen. Obama's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?

Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service -- just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan. [In other words, Obama will fund abortion as 'healthcare' undermining the Hyde Amendment]

Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

Obama does not support the Hyde amendment (which banned government funding of abortion with tax payer dollars). He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?

No.

If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?

Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA (funding abortions overseas with American tax dollars).

Prof. Robert George on "Pro-lifers for Obama"

Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
Oct 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals--even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals -- who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one -- reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies -- so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy -- and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Palin exposes Obama's abortion extremism

Governor Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee unveiled Obama on abortion while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.
Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.
I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.
Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.
But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.

************************************
I wonder why the McCain campaign hasn't been trying to attack Obama on the issue of abortion until now. Thank God, Palin has gone on the attack. In the remaining weeks (and hopefully at the last debate) if they open up on this front, many independent swing voters and pro-life Democrats may take a pause -- pause enough to swing their votes to the GOP.

Barack Obama and the "Liberal Media"

Media Campaigns Hard for Obama
By Tony Blankley

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

Obama Won't Own Up To His Abortion Record

Obama Lying About His Abortion Record
By Rich Lowry

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's line recalled Dole's plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, "Tell him to stop lying about my record." Dole's outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama's problem isn't his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act -- the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" -- effectively "no" -- on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's one of the central dilemmas of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a post-partisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Bob Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record.

Democrats: Let’s Abolish The Caucus System

I’m fully behind Hillary Clinton supporters calling for the abolition of the caucus system. This isn’t entirely noise being made for the sake of doing so because we’re mad Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama, but because the caucus system is very flawed—though, it is arguable that Clinton would have wiped the floor with Obama if there were only primaries.

Caucuses undermine core democratic values because it is a very undemocratic way to nominate someone. I think all states should be required to hold primaries instead. Caucuses are inherently unfair to the elderly, the disabled, shift workers, parents, overseas members of the military, and others whose circumstances prevent them from sitting for hours in a caucus vote. In a primary vote, people have the entire day to vote, but caucuses last only for a few hours, usually in the evening (past midnight in Texas this year) and that disenfranchises voters with obligations that prevent them from participating.

Many caucus rules profoundly violate the one person-one vote principle. For example, in certain states' rules if a precinct is entitled to elect four delegates to the county convention and the vote is 59 percent for candidate A and 41 percent for candidate B, the mathematical rules may require a 2-2 division (because candidate A did not win 60 percent). Therefore, 59 percent to 41 percent—a landslide—results in a 50-50 tie and an even split of delegates.

The worse case is in the state I live in (Texas) and that’s the “Texas Two Step” system. This year nearly three million voters participated in the March 4th Democratic primary. Then the caucus began at 7 p.m. when the polls closed. The people who voted in the primary—I’m not kidding you—may return and vote again. But not all votes are equal! Say, you live in Houston or Austin and the 2006 Democratic candidate for governor carried your precinct by a large margin, your vote could be twice or even three times as influential as if you lived in south Texas, which is mostly rural, strong Republican-dominated counties.

How is any of that democratic, particularly when the principle of one-person, one-vote is violated? Doesn't that embarrass a party that calls itself the "Democratic" Party?

Moreover the average turnout in the caucuses—which Obama did very well in—for all of 2008 was under 10 percent. Even in the highest profile caucus state of all, the “I-must-always-be-first-in-the-nation-to-go,” Iowa had their strongest caucus turnout ever this year. 218,000 Iowans made it to the Democratic caucuses that night, in a state with 2.982 million citizens, for a 7.3-percent showing. It doesn’t get any better in other states: New Mexico (11 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Minnesota and Maine (5 percent), North Dakota (4 percent), Colorado and Nebraska (3 percent), and Idaho, Wyoming, and Kansas (2 percent).

More than twenty years ago, the Democrats switched from winner-take-all contest to a proportional allocation of delegates to be more “fair.” Well, the current system is anything but fair with the silly mathematical formulas for allocating delegates.

In the Texas primary on March 4, Hillary defeated Obama by a margin of 100,000 votes out of nearly 3 million. Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama received 61. But in the Texas caucus over 42,538 caucus goers – 1.4 percent of primary voters – overturned the will of the other 98.6 percent. Talk about stealing democracy from the people by an exclusionary process. In the end, Obama won 38 delegates to Clinton’s 29. Put all this together and Obama came out of Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94, despite the fact that Clinton handily won the contest where votes were actually counted.

Look at Nevada and New Hampshire. Hillary won the Nevada caucus and the New Hampshire primary yet Obama received more delegates than her in both states.

Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for the caucus. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes (80 percent of the vote). For that, he won 15 delegates to only 3 for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates. In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than a million votes. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Democrats…please explain, under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Hillary by 13,000 votes in one state than she does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

If we kept the mathematical formula of Idaho where Obama picked up 15 of 18 delegates for winning a state with just over 21,000 Democratic votes, then, in a consistent democratic system, using the Idaho math of a net of 12 delegates per 13,000 vote advantage, Hillary’s 215,000 vote win in Pennsylvania should have yielded her a net gain of 198 delegates. Instead, she’s gained a net of only 12 delegates from the Keystone State.

In this case, an Idaho Democrat’s vote counted for 16 times more than a Pennsylvania Democrat’s vote. The system rewards blowout wins in small states and minimizes wins even of 10 or 12 percentage points in big states.

Why should a few thousand people Idaho have an absurdly large say, ultimately quelling a few million in Pennsylvania? One person, one vote? Not in the Democrats’ delegate-allocation system.

Suggestions for the Democratic Party:

One. Abolish the caucus system. Don’t try to bandage it, fix it up, or anything. Just kill it.

Two. Require all states to have primaries; do away with proportional delegate allocation and require a winner-take all system that aligns the nominating system with the Electoral College system for electing presidents—unlike many Democrats, I don’t support abolishing the Electoral College.

Three. Eliminate the super delegates. Nancy Pelosi said she opposed the idea of having super delegates from the beginning yet she was the most biased and the worst behaved. If the political big wigs want to give endorsements and try to sway voters, let them, but their advocacy should not earn any presidential candidate any sort of delegation. By all means, 800 super delegates is beyond excessive and it easily allows party insiders to back a single candidate to the chagrin of the voters. We’re Democrats—let the people decide. Step in if no one reaches the total number of delegates needed by the end of the primary season; it is a race to be elected by the people, not your colleagues.

Four. Why not have five regional primaries starting in mid-January, on a set date, maybe even on a weekend when people are off from work and have one region vote each month through May, with the order of regions rotated every four years so everyone gets a chance to go first (cf. Florida and Michigan controversy; the divine right of Iowa and New Hampshire to always go first to the anger of other states in the union.)

I think this is a sensible and fair request. While those terms are oxymoronic when associated with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating system, I can always pray and hope.

Why Obama is in Trouble

Over at Real Clear Politics, I found an article that is right on the money in its criticism and questioning of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. The author boldly concluded: "'[t]he pundits can talk until they are blue in the face about Obama's charisma and eloquence and cross-racial appeal. The fact of the matter is that Obama has no chance of being elected president in 2008.' I am more convinced of this conclusion than ever."

I recommend it. It's a good read, provides valuable arguing points, and is food for thought for Obama supporters.

Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Considering this, how could anyone support a candidate that is more pro-abortion that NARAL?

An Unrequited Letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec

Sent on June 8, 2008.

Professor Kmiec,

In the words of St. Paul: Grace and Peace from our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm writing to you because of your political statements that have caused quite a stir in Catholic circles. This letter is not intended to be an attack of any sort. All I offer is a humble consideration, if you conscientiously disagree, I will not (and as I don't now) doubt your dedication to the Catholic faith, though I think you are making a serious error. I just hope that you will consider my words and if my reasoning is not faulty, you may change your position.

I'm a student at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, a practicing Roman Catholic, and a pro-life Democrat. I will concede that I am convinced for a variety of reasons that the Republican Party puts on a pro-life facade every four years and pro-life Christians (people of good will) take the bait and get little out of it. I think it is terrible that the pro-life voice is found only on one side of the American political discourse because it enables the Republican Party to make promises that it has no intention of keeping. Moreover, changing American culture and its moral environment is far more crucial to the abortion situation than the law itself—though that does not mean that the law is of no consequence.

The entire primary season, I backed (and voted for) Hillary Rodham Clinton because I felt she was the strongest candidate, the most morally sound, and the only one who had a clear plan and not words. I think she is an intelligent and very capable woman. Truth be told, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton's politics. But she and I became friends because we had a common enemy: Barack Obama. That's over now and I'm voting for John McCain.

First, Barack Obama has very little political experience. He entered the Senate in 2005 and after 143 days of experience in office he announced his presidential bid. Obama has not championed many bills, has voted "present" on too many bills for someone not even finished with his first term, nor has he reached across the playing field for bipartisan agreement. Instead, he was number 16 in rank of the most liberal Senators in 2005, number 10 in 2006, and number 1 last year. He is a clear leftist. His rhetoric sounds wonderful and lofty—uniting the country, reaching across the political divide, etc, but his political actions and voting record suggest otherwise. Don't actions speak louder than words? In essence, Barack Obama has found a political gimmick that works magnificently. John McCain has said that he would have Democrats in his Administration; McCain has made bipartisan agreements with Democrats, he's voted against Bush's tax cuts, has bucked the GOP on torture and immigration, and even argues with fellow conservatives about the reality of climate change. He's pretty bipartisan and he has a record that offers proof—he should be running on Obama's slogan.

In many of your statements, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you accept Obama's supposed-bipartisan rhetoric too quickly particularly on the abortion crisis. Your argument for the moral equivalency between McCain and Obama's position on Roe v. Wade is quite a statement—one that will not go unchallenged. Unless I am totally mistaken, your assessment in "Reasons for Catholic Hope in the General Election" is that since neither McCain or Obama take a natural law standpoint on abortion (one being pro-choice and the other being pro-federalism rather than favoring a constitutional reading that sees the inalienable right to life—thus, we are truly nine judges away from overturning Roe v. Wade instead of one judge) there is no qualitative difference between their views and a Catholic could easily vote for either. I profoundly disagree with you. A Catholic is obliged to certain moral principles that promote the common good, but there is a clear hierachy of issues and we have to vote for the candidate that will clearly bring us closer to an end to abortion. It is clear to me that Obama's pledge "on this fundamental issue, I will not yield" and promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into federal law rolling back every federal and state law restricting abortion since the Roe v. Wade (including partial-birth abortion) is an ominous sign that Obama's "unity" abortion rhetoric is false.

As a Democrat, I would agree that Republicans don't give abortion the primacy it deserves and that they may not be all that serious about ending it. Sure. But that does not immediately justify a Democratic vote. McCain's view would allow many states to outlaw abortion. Obama has pledged to roll back any restrictions and abortion-on-demand will be the law of the land. Again, as a Democrat I believe women who get abortions are faced with the most difficult and tragic circumstances they may ever find themselves in and we need to work to eliminate the "abortion climate." I'm very compassionate toward women and aware of the social and economic crises women who opt for abortion face. But I don't see why we cannot legislate pro-woman policies and work to provide legal protection for the unborn simultaneously. Obama has talked real big, but there is no actual evidence of Obama's supposed tendency to "reach out" to people he in disagreement with. Unless he's talking to some massive audience and giving a lofty speech about "unity"—I find that any disagreement he rejects as "divisive" and "not what people care about..." followed by an hour long speech about gas prices and healthcare.

Lowering the abortion rate under a Democratic Administration is one thing, but to do so at the cost of having possibly every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade rolled back by the Freedom of Choice Act passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President is another thing. The ground we would lose on ending abortion is unfathomable. In the Illinois State Senate he voted against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Not only did he take the bill down, he kept it off the floor. There was a story in the news about babies who survived abortions dying in Chicago hospitals a few years ago and he was cited in the story as why the bill could not pass for about 5 years until he left the State Senate and then it passed. Truly, I do not wish to insult you or demean you as a Catholic. I am sure you have good intentions and you want to see human flourishing. But I cannot conceive how anyone in good conscience could vote for a man who believes that a child outside of the mother's womb does not deserve basic legal protection and medical treatment and instead votes in favor of the child being left to die in a utility room—jurisprudence goes out the window, bill language out the window—how can anyone vote for that? I don't think our Lord would vote him.

NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose the bill. I cannot fathom a candidate more pro-choice than NARAL, but Barack Obama is that candidate. Even in regard to healthcare Obama is a terrible choice. At a Planned Parenthood Forum in 2007, Barack Obama and John Edwards promised to include abortion coverage in their healthcare plans (and this was later confirmed by both campaigns). Therefore, Obama not only wants to allow access to abortion-on-demand at any point during pregnancy, not only will he apply a strict pro-choice litmus test to Justices he appoints, but he wants to cover abortion in universal healthcare and all citizens—including pro-life citizens—would have to pay for it. To even fathom that idea somehow says that he does not believe a word of all the hot air he spouts off in his speeches.

Even if Obama did believe what he was saying—I'm not convinced—he is naive to think that after 8 years of the President Bush horror (and it has been horrible), Democrats are ready for change. He'll pick for his Administration from the same run of the mill politicians, possibily with Hillary Clinton on his ticket, a Democratic Congress, and a solid pro-choice Supreme Court after his appointments. Basically, he'll be surrounded by politicians—more experienced than he, unless he picks a totally unexperienced Administration—glad to be back in control, eager for power, and not sharing his ideals for change, if they even exist. He has basically written a check that he cannot cash either way or doesn't even plan on cashing.

I don't doubt that you are a man of good will. In fact, it is unfortunate that you had to suffer the horrible experience of being denied the Eucharist. Perhaps, such an incidence may make it harder to concede. But I do hope that you prayerfully consider your position. If I'm right in regard to Sen. Barack Obama, his presidency could be a very grave setback for the pro-life cause. At one point, slavery was an issue and it wasn't until it is outlawed that the political climate changed; the same is true of civil rights. What is law, for some people is the way things should be and to let Roe v. Wade be enacted into federal law would be a real blow to the pro-life movement. Lastly, consider that it would be better in the long run for states to be allowed to determine what to do on abortion than let it stay legal in all 50 states while only trying to reduce the abortion rate—it could and would be illegal in many states. Illegal in many states is far better than illegal in no states. It is a mere step closer toward a total abolition of the holocaust of the unborn.

The Catholic obligation is not only to reduce the abortion rate, but to end its practice and the legality of abortion does matter. If there were a different candidate not with Obama's voting record and history and lack of legislative and executive experience, whom was mildly or even moderately pro-choice, I think things may be somewhat different, but Obama is too far to the left on a number of issues especially abortion. Obama by far is the leftist-leaning, most pro-abortion candidate in history and it is hard to fathom how he at all will receive or why he deserves a Catholic vote.

Barack Obama Not "A Different Kind of Politician"?

This is a must read: Political Wisdom: Barack Obama is a Politician.

Barack Obama's "Political Experience"

In the weeks leading up to Senator Obama’s departure for the warzones in Iraq and Afghanistan and his visit to several European nations, which will (and has) gained him much media attention, the question was raised again and again for political commentators to answer: what does he gain from all this?

Many of the answers were solid and reasonable. One political commentator suggested that he is right to go in July and not closer to November, just in case he would need to recover from some political backlash should the ordeal not gain him any ground in winning on the issue of Iraq. Moreover, if he can make a case for his position on Iraq, given what he has seen most recently on the ground that may play to his favor—perhaps even moreso because he will have visited Iraq more recently than McCain.

Again, such talk is reasonable. One might think that people are fools for accepting his position, but one can hardly argue that his actions can't gain him a more favorable rating on the issue. In fact, after the constant attack from conservatives that he is "out of touch" on Iraq because he has not been to Iraq in quite some time—particularly since the surge—Obama may be right in taking this trip, it may remove the powerful "punch" of such attack ads.

Though, I’m not surprised, on one of the more liberal political stations I watch (MSNBC), many of the political commentators suggested that it will add "beef" to Barack Obama’s political experience. In other words, he will look "presidential" and will be able to add to his foreign policy experience.

To this I cannot help but wonder: how does a trip to see what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan equal foreign policy experience? It is not as if he has made any crucial, judgmental decisions affecting the region and surely traveling through Europe does not gain him such experience either. I am more inclined to say that is foreign travel experience not foreign policy experience. And foreign travel experience does not earn you the presidency. But even if we were to say that he gained some sort of foreign policy experience, his so-called experience would still remain pale in comparison to that of John McCain’s.

In the grand scheme of things, Barack Obama’s political experience should be at question here. Just how much Senate experience does he has in actual terms of work days? Not very much. From the time Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator to the time that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee, he had logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed that he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. After 143 days, he believed that he is worthy of America delivering to him the highest office in our land. This is his experience, stark in contrast to John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW, and the candidate who has visited the warzone more frequently than his opponent.

On the campaign trail, Obama has missed days in the Senate, he has not finished his first term, has not championed many bills, has not reached across the aisle to conservatives though he is running as a "different kind of politician" and in the name of common ground, and he has voted "present" on too many bills for someone not finished with his first senatorial term, lacking in notable political experience, and running for president.

Are these political commentators actually reflecting on reality and giving unbiased information regarding the state of American affairs and the people’s sentiment, or are they saying anything and everything to defend and endorse their partisan affection for Obama? I think the answer is obvious.

Universal Healthcare Back On The Market

Kennedy Leads Renewed Effort on Universal Healthcare

Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office has begun convening a series of meetings involving a wide array of healthcare specialists to begin laying the groundwork for a new attempt to provide universal healthcare, according to participants.

The discussions signal that Kennedy, who instructed aides to begin holding the meetings while he is in Massachusetts undergoing treatment for brain cancer, intends to work vigorously to build bipartisan support for a major healthcare initiative when he returns to Washington in the fall.

Those involved in the discussions said Kennedy believes it is extremely important to move as quickly as possible on overhauling the healthcare system after the next president takes office in January in order to capitalize on the momentum behind a new administration.

Kennedy was an early endorser of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee who is also a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Kennedy chairs.

Obama's Senate staff has attended the roundtable discussions. If Obama is elected, Kennedy's effort to identify points of agreement among senators could smooth the way for the new administration to press ahead on universal healthcare, which Obama has promised to implement within four years.

The last time a national healthcare plan was attempted, under President Clinton in 1993, the presidential panel charged with devising a proposal was widely criticized for not consulting enough with Congress, and protracted disagreements erupted, delaying its progress for months and ultimately resulting in its demise. Kennedy's effort appears to be designed to identify areas of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, providers and insurers, and others before the new president takes office.

"The senator is trying to learn from health reform attempts in the past and to build a fair amount of consensus among his Senate colleagues, House colleagues, and the Obama campaign . . . and find a strategy that could carry with some momentum into the new administration," said Dr. Jay Himmelstein, a health policy specialist at University of Massachusetts Medical School and a former Kennedy staff member who has been involved in the talks.

The initiative also suggests that Kennedy, who has made healthcare his signature issue in his 45-year Senate career and who is fighting an aggressive brain tumor, is considering his legacy as a new administration arrives in Washington - a moment many see as the best chance for widespread changes in the healthcare system in 15 years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts: This is good news especially if we're faced with an Obama catastrophe. If we can have universal healthcare that doesn't include the abortion coverage he advocates, let's get it. I think we should take what we can get out of an Obama presidency if we're going to lose ground on a pro-life Supreme Court especially and many recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support universal healthcare. I do hope that single-payer advocating Republicans are brought to the table on this. And where is Hillary Clinton?

Roman Catholics for Obama and Catholic Social Teaching

A careful examination of the website of the controversial group Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 will yield a sense of doubt in their reasoning and rhetoric. The site employs a “Blueprint for Change,” which outlines Senator Obama’s presidential plans and the policies that he advocates. The group then reviews it in light of the seven principles of Catholic Social Teaching. For the most part, they don't do a bad job and demonstrate very well that Obama's policies are consonant with the social justice teachings of the Church.

What I find interesting is the way they gloss over Barack Obama’s failures on the right-to-life issues, particularly abortion. They quote him talking about reducing the abortion rate, though it is disguised behind standard pro-choice rhetoric. There is no mention of the fact that he has a 100% NARAL abortion rating and that he constantly opposes legislation that would even restrict, regulate, or seemingly help a woman make an informed "reproductive health" choice, which he supposedly advocates. Furthermore, there is no mention of his opposition of a bill that would protect born-babies that survived abortions from legal and medical protection.

Essential facts that a faithful Catholic should consider is not given attention. Rather, they gloss over the right-to-life issues and talk about every other issue—all of which are pressing, relevant, and important in their own right—and show that Obama does not contradict the Catholic moral framework on those issues. Agreed, he doesn’t. Though, he does go against Catholic teaching on abortion, on embryonic stem-cell research, and even on euthanasia. And these vital issues cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant.

Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice—the pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-contraception advocacy group of dissenting Catholics—a few months ago endorsed Barack Obama as the best abortion candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Strikingly, Kissling criticized Hillary Clinton for not being “radical enough” on the issue of abortion and for having failed the “pro-reproductive rights” movement by failing to cover abortion in her healthcare plan reform as First Lady and during her 2008 presidential bid. Moreover, Clinton had not sought to restore public funding of abortion which was signed away by her husband during his presidency after she became a U.S. Senator. And Barack Obama is the man to "right" the "failures" of Clinton in regard to abortion being considered healthcare and public funding of abortion.

Barack Obama is entirely antithetical to the Catholic position on the sanctity of life issues and as Kissling suggested far more radical than Hillary Clinton. Obama has promised a pro-choice litmus test on the Supreme Court appointments when we’re a single Justice away from being able to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obama wants to cover abortion through universal healthcare, and thereby, employ tax-payer dollars to publicly fund the procedure. Obama furthermore wants to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and roll back every pro-life law since 1973 regulating abortion—eradicating the fruits of the pro-life movement over the last 35 years in one fatal blow.

Now given this reality, they somehow conceive that Obama will lead America toward “creating a culture of life.” Such a statement begs some attempt at qualification. They don't even try. I think it's obvious why. Granted, I’m personally not against voting for a pro-choice candidate in principle, there may be “proportionate reasons” to justify such a vote, or perhaps even, the election is between two pro-choice candidates. But, I don’t find their arguments—or lack of them—convincing. They don’t even criticize their candidate in the slightest; they don’t even seem to think it’s necessary. Obama is, by their regards, the "Catholic candidate." Well, I’m Catholic and I disagree. Obama is bad business for Democrats in my view.

Roman Catholics for Obama '08 should at least be willing to deliver constructive criticism, in no uncertain terms, that Obama falls short on Catholic teaching and that his disagreements are morally unacceptable and that Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 does not condone his positions. It is obvious that neither a possible-Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will see any reason to change their “pro-reproductive rights” policies if they can expect uncritical support from even those that disagree with them.

I’ll draw a different picture here that is stark in contrast to what you will find on the group’s website currently. Say, Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 firmly believed that the Bush Administration and the Republican Party has not delivered on their promises and rhetoric in regard to vital issues that concern Catholic voters and that there are insurmountable concerns given the state of the economy, the wars in the Middle East, an energy crisis, thousands upon thousands of home foreclosures that conservatives are not rushing in to deliver aid, a broken healthcare system, a dire need for education reform, growing poverty, a dire need to restore positive moral standing in the international community, and a need to “green” our policies and cities, etc., and that Catholics can (and perhaps should) vote for Barack Obama despite his pro-choice position.

But there advocacy would not stop there. They could (and would) launch a national campaign of Catholics writing letters in bulk to the Obama campaign (and his Administration, if elected) requesting that he discourage the Freedom of Choice Act because it isn't change and it isn't common ground, add a more inclusive pro-life plank to the Democratic Platform on abortion, that he adopt a more moderate position on abortion that reflects the majority American opinion that allows for legal restrictions, that he work to find common ground with people on the opposite side of the aisle by supporting the Democrats for Life of America's 95-10 initiative to reduce abortion by 95% in 10 years, to support the Pregnant Women Support Act—a comprehensive bill to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term—in addition to making the Adoption Tax Credits permanent and expanding SCHIP medical coverage to pregnant women and unborn children. Furthermore, he could be asked to endorse the Right To Know Act enabling women to be provided accurate information about abortion and human life development to ensure women make an informed decision.

The list goes on and on of what can be recommended. This way the group would appear far less dubious. Granted, many Catholics may reasonably disagree. But it would make a world of difference if they at least addressed his record on abortion and admitted that it is bad and in response, invoked a campaign to ensure maximum protection for the unborn while safeguarding policies they believe is essential to the common good and positive change in America.

Is that too much to ask for?

Barack Obama, Religious Voters, and Abortion

This entire election cycle thus far the Democratic Party has been courting religious voters. Throughout the Democratic primary, the candidates spoke openly about their faith, participated in a “Compassion Forum,” and seized the opportunity to talk about their commonalities with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI—on war, on fighting poverty, on respecting the dignity of immigrants, on peaceful diplomacy, etc— upon his apostolic journey to the United States.

Sen. Barack Obama went as far as to endorse faith-based initiatives recently, though they would have to comply with secular standards that undermine the religious approach of such organizations, e.g. Christian organizations could not prefer to hire Christian people in their ministering to the needy. This is problematic and one should expect that this will come up later as Election Day draws near.

Another thing we can expect is the Republican Party’s nuclear weapons: abortion and gay marriage. Obama on both of those issues will find himself at odds with a majority of religious voters, particularly on the issue of abortion.

Obama's Call For Unity Faces Abortion Test

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney showed up at Barack Obama's Capitol Hill office building Tuesday with a sign featuring a mockup of the presumptive Democratic nominee dressed as Uncle Sam. Under Obama's image were these words: "I WANT YOU TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS!"

...Obama's health care plan would include expanded access to "reproductive health services" - including abortion - the Illinois senator will effectively mandate that taxpayers, among them people of faith that are strongly against abortion, pay for the procedure.

...“This is a man who stands up and says he is going to bring Republicans and Democrats together to achieve great things for the country," Rove said. “How can you claim to do that if you are at the same time supporting the divisive practice of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion? You can’t. You cannot square that circle.”

Read the whole article here.

Catholics for Obama?

Catholics for Obama? A tough case to make.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez

Can a Catholic be for Barack Obama? The question has been recently raised by a law professor at Pepperdine who went from being a Mitt Romney adviser to an Obama supporter. The question is further raised by the appearance of the angry Fr. Michael Pfleger, a longtime friend of the Democratic nominee who recently preached at Obama’s (now former) Trinity church in the national news.

The answer to the question is not up to me. The answer comes to the individual Catholic through prayer and reflection on the demands of his conscience, informed by the teaching of the Church. Neither of those steps can be glossed over. And there can be no mistaking what responsibilities the Catholic voter faces. When the topic was recently a matter of cable talking-heads’ concern, I was asked, repeatedly, in all seriousness, if Catholics can even vote. After all, war is bad. The death penalty is bad. Abortion is bad. John McCain supports the war on terror. He supports capital punishment. He is against abortion. Obama: antiwar, pro-abortion, functionally anti-death penalty. So neither wins. Or Obama wins? “Can Catholics vote for anyone?” readers asked.

Further, e-mailers asked, (I quote one of many): “You are, of course, aware that the Catholic Church also sees contraception as a sin, as well. Since means never justify the ends, voting for a candidate who promotes contraception as an alternative to abortion is also wrong. Without researching, I assume all major candidates have no problem with contraception, therefore, no candidate should get Catholic votes by your line of reasoning. I’m sorry for this rant, but I do not like people playing politics with my religion.”

No, no presidential candidate is going to call for a ban on contraception. That’s not a serious consideration. But politics can never be wholly divorced from religion. Our religious morality necessarily informs our political judgments. The thing about abortion is, it’s not just any other issue — as serious as so many others are. Abortion is not open to debate.

Pope Benedict, in a speech to European politicians in 2006, offered some instruction for the Catholic conscience: “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: the 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 one man and one woman based on marriage . . . ; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”

That “not negotiable” is not to be missed.

So can a Catholic vote for a politician who supports legal abortion? Providing guidance, the Archbishop of Denver writes that a Catholic voter would “need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. . . . It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

Barack Obama says he would never want his daughters to be “punished” by the birth of an unplanned baby. The Catholic Catechism instructs that a child “must be treated from conception as a person.” Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation that would protect babies born alive in botched abortion attempts. He explained, “whenever we define a pre-viable 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 to a — a child, a 9-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 anti-abortion statute.”

That would be a child, albeit not a nine-month-old child (forgive me for not being moved by his distinction), whose life he dismissed.

This is the Democrats’ candidate for president. Catholics need to know what their Church teaches. Know your candidate. Know abortion isn’t just any issue. It’s a grave offense and betrayal to fail to protect the most innocent human life. If you’re a Catholic who honestly can see how Barack Obama’s election as president won’t contribute to or compound that offence, go in peace. I don’t see it. I don’t see how anyone can see it. And so for those who don’t get a vote, for those who have been mutilated and murdered in the name of “choice,” this Catholic will cast hers against him in November.

— Kathryn Lopez is the editor of National Review Online.

Seating the Florida and Michigan Delegates

On May 31, the DNC will determine what they will do with the Florida and Michigan delegates. Honestly, I think they are going to make a bad decision and pick the weaker candidate, alienate Florida and Michigan despite their attempt to compromise, and lose the general election.

"Tom in Paine" is right on in his blog post on Florida and Michigan.

"Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.

John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).

But Obama topped that display about six weeks ago when he floated the idea that he and Clinton split the delegate count in Florida and Michigan 50-50 as a way of resolving the problem. In other words he wanted delegates that didn't belong to him. This was an attempt at a political mugging. He wanted delegates that weren't his, delegates the voters clearly said were meant for Clinton and delegates they clearly didn't want him to have. It was about as brazen an attempt to to corrupt the political process by a candidate for high office as has been seen in recent memory."

The Clinton/Obama War For The Democratic Nomination

I found this blogpost to be very interesting:

"Clinton has had to fight through a number of handicaps in this race. She has had to carry more weight, placed on her back by the news media, Obama's bullying tactics and party elders who seem more worried about damaging the "brand", and blowing their chances in the fall than who is the best candidate. And when Obama's lead was growing they were more worried about exposing the cracks in the Obama kewpie doll, than whether those cracks were so damaging they made him unelectable in November. The result is that every time Obama has attacked Clinton and she has hit back, she was criticized from all sides.

"The news media who has been in the tank for Obama in probably the most dishonest and biased coverage of an electoral process in history, accuses her of low tactics if she defends herself. Party elders who, if nothing else, have shown since 1996 they haven't a clue how to win a Presidential election, admonish her not to do anything that would damage the Democrats chances in the fall. Howard Dean, more afraid of not losing than making sure the Democrats win by sending out the most electable and qualified candidate, keeps talking about putting an end to race before its over. And Obama seeing that Clinton has one hand tied behind her back, has taken full advantage, taking his swings when he can, then playing victim if Clinton hits back.

...Clinton is virtually assured that she will end the primary season with the popular vote lead. And the only clear and reliable indicator of the true will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count given the Democrats bizarre way of apportioning delegates.

"Obama will have won close to 630 delegates in states where he was landslided by Clinton. These are delegates he would never have if the Democrats used the system that is used by the Republicans and in the general election. In that system Clinton would have close to a 500 delegate lead and would have wrapped up the nomination long ago."

Read more here.

My Comments: I think this hits it right on. Clinton through her struggles has become the better candidate over Obama. Morally speaking, she is the better candidate (she didn't vote 'yes' on killing babies that survived abortions like Obama did). If I had to choose one, it would be her. Moreover, she has overcome so many hurdles in this election process that I have developed a deep respect for her. She has had overcome so many unfair odds, she has fought back, and she is still standing.

What's more important is the ridiculous allocation of delegates. In several states, where she won, she also picked up less delegates, e.g. New Hampshire. The Democrats truly need to revise how they allocate delegates because even with the media coverage favoring Obama, etc, I think Hillary could have (and should have) won this thing long ago.

Roman Catholics for Obama '08

Archbishop Chaput is an admirable Catholic leader in the United States. He faithfully presents the teachings of the Church and candidly speaks about them. More importantly, he is very humble and often gives people the benefit of the doubt; it might be more accurate to say, he invites Catholics to conscientiously reflect on the teachings of the Magisterium and conform to the authentic teachings of Christ Jesus. I think this is direly needed especially in the politicization of the Catholic Church and debate on which American political party better reflects Catholic social teaching.

Earlier this year, the Denver Archbishop offered a coherent vision of Catholic responsibility as voters in the American political process. He clearly stressed the primacy of the abortion issue and did not criticize those who for "proportionate" reasons vote for a pro-choice candidate. He did emphasize that he disagreed with them, but in his experience, he knew people, of good will, who morally did oppose abortion, but hoped to bring about its demise in a different way.

I am proud that Catholics speak out against pro-choice rhetoric. I am even more proud that we remind fellow Catholics that the pro-choice position is not compatitible with our faith. But, in his own way, Archbishop Chaput is a humble gift to the Catholic Church in America. He goes beyond political language and does not speak condescendingly or make ad hominem statements. I personally am grateful for him as a Roman Catholic. While I profoundly disagree with people who identify as "pro-choice," I think basic respect is due to them and true civil dialogue will serve us better as we move toward the goal of ending the horror of abortion. In all truthfulness, calling people "baby killers," "pro-death," "proponents of a culture of death," "anti-life" and so forth, while it may be true of their position, it is not productive and it yields an unnecessary culture war at the expense of lives of unborn children who die everyday while we fail to humbly approach those who disagree with us. The solution to hostility is not to respond with hostility.

Once again, I admire and thank Archbishop Chaput and I recommend his words to the Roman Catholics who for whatever reason have decided to back Sen. Barack Obama for President.

Thoughts on "Roman Catholics for Obama '08"
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1073