A Change in Republican Politics?

From The Washington Times: "GOP gets wake-up call on minority vote"

Virginia Republicans say the overwhelming support by blacks and Hispanics that led to big wins for Democrats on Election Day taught them a valuable lesson: The party must work harder to make minority voters feel included and involved or pay dearly at the polls.

President-elect Barack Obama became the first Democrat in 44 years to win Virginia, and Senator-elect Mark Warner scored even better than Mr. Obama among blacks and Hispanics in the state.

"That Obama and Warner were able to attract large numbers of minorities suggests to the Republican Party that we need to be better at getting out our message," said Chuck Smith, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia's Welcoming Committee. "We are the party of values and freedom."

To get their message across, Republicans need to focus on a message of "inclusion and involvement," he said.

In Prince William County, for example, Corey A. Stewart, a Republican and chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors last year led one of the country's most stringent crackdowns on illegal immigrants, which sparked fear and flight among that Hispanic community.

Fabiola Francisco, chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said the crackdown showed a huge messaging problem that the party must correct.

"The party has to do a rebranding campaign and make sure the truth is really out there, that we're not against immigrants or we're not against other minorities or anything like that," she said. "The Prince William campaign may have had good intentions, but it did cause an uphill battle for our groups."

The county this year had 23,500 new voter registrations while nearby Loudoun County had 16,903.

Mrs. Francisco also said that while Republicans have attempted to reach out in such places as churches and stores frequented by minorities, the party needs to cast a wider net with its grass-roots efforts to include such venues as community festivals and soccer tournaments.

Jeffrey M. Frederick, a Hispanic who is chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia and a Prince William County state delegate who backed the county's immigration crackdown, shared similar thoughts.

Republicans need to narrow their focus from a broader policy of inclusion to building one-on-one relationships in communities, he said, and emphasize stances on issues of which minorities and the party agree: small government, lower taxes and family values.

His party also has to overcome the anti-immigration label it's been given and the fact that many minority cultures associate themselves with the Democratic Party by cultural default, Mr. Frederick said.

"The fact of the matter is our values as Republicans more closely align with the values of these ethnic minorities," he said. "You name the issue, and they're going to agree with us more than with the Democrats."

Mr. Obama defeated Republican Sen. John McCain with roughly 53 percent of the vote in Virginia. Mr. Obama won the support of 92 percent of black voters and 65 percent of Hispanics in Virginia, according to exit polls used by MSNBC.com. In cities with large black populations, such as Hampton, Norfolk and Richmond, Mr. Obama earned a greater percent of the total vote than Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry did in 2004.

Mr. Warner, a former Virginia governor who is white, won a Senate seat with a higher percentage of black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Obama: 93 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

The number of Hispanics in Virginia increased from 329,540 in 2000 to 470,871 in 2006, according to the most recent census figures. And the number of blacks increased from 1.4 million to 1.5 million over the same period, according to the census .

Jared Leopold, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Virginia, said his party focused on a program that included visiting different communities and using Spanish-language materials in some areas prior to this year's elections.

Mr. Frederick said his party also "reached out this campaign season, [but] I think we need to do more reaching out." And even Mr. Leopold said the battle between the parties to win minority voters isn't nearly over.

"If Republicans speak to communities about the issues that they face, I think that will be a battle for us," Mr. Leopold said. "I don't think that voting bloc is solidified for Democrats for all time."

Pro-Life Democrats in Congress

Pro-Life Democrats Get Five Congressional Seats Despite Pro-Choice Obama Win
by Steven Ertelt

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-choice Democrat Barack Obama may have captured the presidency, but the pro-life group working within the party to change its pro-choice position has a reason to celebrate. Democrats for Life of America backed several pro-life Democrats for Congress and five won their races Tuesday night.

"The pro-life Democratic Caucus will once again increase," Kristen Day, the director of the group told LifeNews.com.

"This will be only the second time in 30 years that the number of pro-life Democrats increases instead of decreases," the said. "The first time we made gains was in 2006 due to the work of pro-life Democrats all over this country advocating on behalf of the pro-life cause."

Twenty-six pro-life incumbent members of Congress kept their seats on Tuesday night. They will be joined by five other pro-life Democrats.

Bobby Bright won the Congressional race in Alabama's second district, Parker Griffith won in the Alabama fifth district, Steve Driehaus is the new congressman in Ohio's first district, Kathy Dahlkemper now represents Pennsylvania's third distract, and John Boccieri won in the 16th district of Ohio.

Some of the victories are much-needed because less-than-stellar congressmen are on their way out.

The Griffith win is good news for pro-life advocates because he replaced pro-choice Democrat Robert Cramer and Boccieri replaces retiring mixed-record Rep. Regula.

However, the other victories came at a price -- with pro-life incumbents losing seats.

Driehaus defeated pro-life champion Steve Chabot, who was the main sponsor of the partial-birth abortion ban that Congress approved and the Supreme Court upheld. He will have big shoes to fill and pro-life advocates in Cincinnati will be making sure he is as vocal of an advocate.

Dahlkemper defeated long-time pro-life rep. Phil English, who always maintained a 100 percent pro-life voting record. Bright replaces retiring pro-life Rep. Terry Everett, a Republican.

The pro-life Democrat group could find another friend in Congress depending on the results of a December Congressional runoff.

In the fourth district in Louisiana, Democrat Paul Carmouche will face off against Republican winner Dr. John Fleming and independent candidates Chester T. "Catfish" Kelley and Gerard Bowen Jr.

They are vying for the open seat vacated by retiring pro-life Rep. Jim McCrery of Shreveport.

A Grave Mistake and an Abiding Hope

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Americans have made a grave mistake in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Yet America herself remains great and is not a mistake, which is why so many of her citizens will continue, with even greater energy and determination, to defend her founding principles.

The man elected to the Presidency said during the campaign that he does not know when a human being starts to have human rights. How can one govern from that starting point of ignorance? Governing is about protecting human rights; to do it successfully, you have to know where they come from, and when they begin.

The President-elect has already failed that test miserably.

The American people do not share Barack Obama’s extreme and offensive views on abortion. They never have and they never will. The coming four years will see a widening gap between the people and their President on this fundamental issue. As Americans come to know how extreme his position is, the intensity of the struggle to protect these children will only increase.

The pro-life movement has made significant gains in the courts and in the law in these last eight years. For the next four, the movement will work to prevent the erosion of that progress.

It would be a serious mistake for people to think that this election means the pro-life movement has no political power. All politics is local. Political power is about people. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was once told that given the political realities, civil rights legislation would be impossible to pass. “We’ll just have to see about that,” he replied. And the civil rights movement was born, stirring the hearts of the people to lead the nation to the victory of justice.

So it is with our movement. The vast majority of Americans are pro-life. They will fight abortion on the local level, opening pregnancy centers and closing abortion mills, activating their Churches and educating their children, proclaiming the message in the media and demonstrating in the streets. The pro-life movement is winning this battle in the hearts and minds of the American people, as opinion polls show and as the shrinking number of abortion mills and abortion providers prove.

Political races are always a swinging of the pendulum. As soon as you win, you begin to lose, and as soon as you lose, you begin the ascent again to winning. In the next two election cycles (2010 and 2012) the pro-life movement will make up for political ground lost in this one.

It is all right to be disappointed at the end of an election season, but one must never walk away. Amidst disappointment is abiding hope in America, where everything remains possible, and where a new chapter of the pro-life movement has just begun. The efforts that were made, and the sacrifices endured in this election season made a difference, and we will build on that difference to see another day when the work and the ballots of pro-life people will dismantle the Culture of Death. We will keep marching toward that pro-life America we seek, and won’t stop until we get there.

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).

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.

Do Facts Matter This Election?

Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain -- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

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.

A Democratic Voice for McCain-Palin '08

A feminist and a Democrat is voting for the Republicans this November. What's her reasoning? I found it interesting, particularly the abortion comment.

Vicious Obama partisans have driven Clinton supporters like me out of the party. And PUMAs will vote for McCain/Palin in November.

Obama has a thin resume. He is a first-term senator from Illinois who has spent most of that term running for president. He was put in charge of a Congressional committee and has not held a single committee meeting. His career has been more about self-promotion than public service.

The media have vetted Palin more in a week's time than Obama was vetted in 20 months. They have crawled into her uterus and her ovaries as well as those of her 17-year-old pregnant daughter.

What's wrong with this picture? The PUMAs know.

As a lifelong Democrat, I am leaving the party with a feeling of profound regret and sadness. It's not that I'm a creationist, a pro-lifer or an environmentally unfriendly person, but as Susan B. Anthony said, no woman should support a party that doesn't support her.

It's not enough, as a PUMA interviewed by CNN at the Republican Convention said, to wave abortion and the Supreme Court in our faces to "keep us in line." No, we don't have to come home to the UnDemocratic party because we have nowhere else to go.

We own our own votes. We PUMAs waved our orange scarves at the Republican Convention and McCain wore an orange tie in our honor.

I talked to a former Clinton supporter at the Labor Day picnic. She is planning to vote, but not for president. She "can't vote for McCain" and won't vote for Obama.

I talked to a 20-year-old UI sophomore who supports Obama. She admitted that at her Coralville caucus, the Obama supporters shouted down the Clinton supporters and refused to let them speak.

So what's democratic about the Democratic Party lately? Not much. We women are welcome to donate to UnDemocratic candidates and volunteer our time.

But when we ask for a seat at the head of the table, all bets are off.

Why would we vote for McCain/Palin in November? Why did General Patton force-march the Third Army through snow and mud to save the American soldiers surrounded and dying in the Ardennes Forest? We're on a forced march against the UnDemocratic Party in 2008 to open up both parties to more women in 2012, 2016 or whenever Democratic leaders figure out that we're not going to shove over for the more politically correct candidate -- albeit with little to offer but impressive oratory -- and wait our turn.

Clinton and Palin together forced Wolf Blitzer on CNN to ask an important question of his CNN crew: "Should Barack Obama have put Hillary Clinton on the ticket?"

Yes, he should have.

If Democrats lose in November, it will be because Clinton's 18,000,000 votes -- as well as her appeal to working-class men and women in important swing states with a lot of electoral votes -- weren't enough to put her on the ticket.

Democratic leaders and Big Media engineered the final outcome before the race had played itself out. Those who get caught stacking the deck, lose. More importantly, they deserve to lose.
HWC on the "Hillary is 44" blog said it best: "I am voting for the party willing to nominate a strong woman for the two highest offices in the country and take a stand against the sexist attacks from the media.

"I look forward to a day in the future when the Democratic Party is also willing to nominate and support female candidates. Then, I will have the luxury of choosing which most closely matches my views on all of the issues. But, we obviously aren't there yet."

Feminists for Life of America Proud of McCain's Pick

[August 29, 2008] Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.

FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

McCain-Palin '08: YES WE CAN!

With multiple media outlets confirming now that Governor Sarah Palin will indeed join the Republican ticket as John McCain’s running mate, McCain has clearly chosen to play offense rather than defense. Instead of a safe choice, such as closest runner-up Mitt Romney or genial Everyman Tim Pawlenty, McCain took some risk with a relative newcomer to national politics. Palin will inject risk, excitement, controversy, and an unexpected historic note to the Republican convention.

First, though, let’s assess the risk. Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and natural gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.

However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different. Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.

And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.

Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.

For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.

Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.

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.

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?

The 2008 Democratic Platform on Abortion

I was heartened to see that Kristen Day, Director of Democrats of Life of America, expressed her views on the 2008 Democratic platform saying that it is a step forward (semantically and in recognition, maybe), but not at all perfect. She praised the emphasis on promoting childbirth and helping pregnant women, but calls the unequivocal pro-abortion position out of touch.

The platform reads, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Day stated that advocating unlimited abortions financed by taxpayers won't go over well with Americans. She further said, "We do not believe that the first paragraph of the [abortion] section that 'strongly and unequivocally' supports Roe v. Wade and federal funding of abortion accurately represents the common ground position that Americans are seeking." She reiterated the committment of pro-life Democrats despite this, saying, "Democrats for Life of America will strongly and unequivocally champion the sanctity of life from conception to natural death and will continue to oppose any and all legislation that infringes on that right." Amen to that.

Day also expressed unhappiness that a proposed conscience clause proposed by Democrats for Life saying "we respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues," was rejected and replaced with a general conscience clause not specifying the abortion issue, which is the most critical. In fact, the pro-choice base and elected officials balked at the language.

"Democrats for Life of America appreciates the Platform Committee adding this statement of general inclusiveness, but we will continue to work with the Democratic Party to explicitly recognize and welcome pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party," Day said.

I fully agree with Day on this and believe that all pro-life Democrats, particularly Catholics, should not be so easily fooled. While it is indeed positive that pro-lifers in the party are being recognized and even Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. will be allowed to speak at the Democratic convention (hopefully he'll take the opportunity to stand up for the unborn) in Denver after his father was denied a speech in 1992 because of his pro-life views, we should ask ourselves: do they really understand our concerns or are they throwing us a bone because they realize how critical we are this election (after two losses in 2000 and 2004)?

The platform states, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." There is very little room for common ground with people who believe abortion is murder in that statement, but rather it is totally reflective of the views of NARAL and Emily's List. Moreover, "regardless of ability to pay" sounds off an alarm to my Catholic conscience especially when Barack Obama pledged in 2007 to fund abortion through the medium of his universal healthcare plan, which would undermine the Hyde Amendment and allow abortion to be funded by tax-payer dollars.

The Democrats say they "oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." That's why they support the Freedom of Choice Act and their presidential nominee has vowed to sign it, which would virtually overturn every federal and state pro-life laws which restrict and undermine the so-called right to abortion. This means the partial-birth abortion ban would be reversed, parental consent and notification laws overturned, mandated ultrasound viewing options overturned, laws against traveling state lines for abortion overturned as well, conscience laws that protect pro-life doctors would be overturned and they would be obligated to perform abortion as standard medical procedure, and the list goes on. Essentially, this would call for abortion-on-demand from conception to birth, maybe even after. (cf. Barack Obama's vote on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act).

I am not surprised they would throw pro-life Democrats a bone by supporting reducing unwanted pregnancies and thereby the abortion rate because that's all we'll have once they enact the Freedom of Choice Act. But as a Catholic, their proposed solutions to reducing abortions are a bit problematic, so much that I would oppose them even while I agree with the principle idea. The Democratic Party "supports access to affordable family planning services." Well, no, that's not Natural Family Planning (NFP), but tax-payers dollars being used to fund wanton distribution of contraceptives, the morning after pill and other abortifacents, and lastly they would advocate comprehensive-sex education (not education on health and disease that I received in school that promotes abstinence) which will "empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." It is obvious that abstinence is not in that education packet, and if it is, it is in the background. Someone should alert the Democrats that Catholics (who they are courting) don't oppose contraception because we think it's a nice little rule, we oppose it because we believe it to be contra-human nature and no good can ever come from its use. Moreover, we can't use evil (contraception) to stop evil (abortion).

It seems to me that at present the Democrats have not changed at all and to quote Obama, "on this fundamental issue," they will "not yield." I sometimes wonder why I don't leave the Democratic Party. With all my soul, I pray they lose their White House bid this November and after three straight presidential losses and more pro-life Democratic seats in Congress and inclusion in the party, they will begin to reassess their priorities. But, at present, I am a dissenter in the ranks and I will be until the Democratic Party stops warring with her own principles.

On a final and very important note: all pro-life Americans who are voting for Barack Obama for whatever reason, do so because you believe that you cannot violate your conscience. I believe that you're profoundly mistaken, but I will not pass my judgment on any of you. Those of you, particularly my Christian brothers and sisters, who are speaking out against war, for peace, for economic justice, for fighting poverty and access to quality healthcare, and your most pressing concerns, do so standing upon the right-to-life if you wish to be morally coherent. In fact, it is the only way to be truly human and truly a humanitarian.

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.

The Seeds for Overturning Roe v. Wade

The Democrats for Life of America have brought an interesting story to my attention—one that involves a legal initiative that the pro-life organization fully endorses. In Colorado, a group called Colorado for Equal Rights have achieved a ballot initiative that will be up for a vote this November to define personhood as including human life from the moment of fertilization, which if passed would gain legal rights and protection as people for unborn babies in the state of Colorado; thus, abortion would be completely and absolutely illegal in that state.

While I do not support on principle the idea of democratically deciding by measure of a vote what personhood is or what human rights we have because while we can affirm good, wonderful things, it also sets the precedence for voting away human rights via a democratic vote. But in this case, I don’t think the measure in and of itself is the goal.

In fact, with the state of the U.S. Supreme Court as 5 pro-choice Justices to 4 pro-life Justices with the next President being poised to replace one or two of the pro-choice Justices, this does not seem at all surprising in an election year.

Colorado Right to Life says that “the goal is to restore legal protection to preborn babies…which is the only way we’re going to stop abortion.”

But the measure does not end in Colorado...

“Critics say the aim is not just to outlaw abortion in Colorado but ultimately to overturn Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that would bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, proponents of the measure hope, a conservative majority would strike down the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.”

Precisely. I hope they are right. How is this not a leading election issue? John McCain needs to be elected, he needs to not consult with any of his pro-choice friends on who to appoint to the Court, wipe the smut that is abortion from future pages of the American legal system, and open the door for us to not mourn on January 22nd, but to celebrate with joy on whatever sacred day the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms the most inviolable of human rights: the right to life.

Read the whole story here.

For this holy cause and the souls of the unborn destroyed by the horror of abortion, Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, shield us from the enemy and receive us at the hour of our death. Amen.

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.

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?

Bush Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout

The progress on the ground in Iraq might have a greater effect on the November elections that originally expected, even just days ago with the announcement that we can anticipate the withdrawal of troops by mid-2009 regardless of who is the president next year.

Well, according to the latest news, President Bush may begin withdrawing some troops from Iraq as early as this September (good political strategy) and the “political benefit might go more to Mr. McCain than Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain is an avid supporter of the current strategy in Iraq. Any reduction would indicate that that strategy has worked and could defuse antiwar sentiment among voters.”

With Obama shifting to the center on this issue and "refining" his earlier committment to immediately withdraw troops, it would be interesting to see how it would effect voter sentiment, particularly the Catholic Left should the war in Iraq have the same general direction regardless of whom you vote for.

The War In Iraq Over By Mid-2009?

The war in Iraq has been advertised by the media as a central issue in the November elections. I certainly don’t disagree. This war is a critical issue that brings to mind a host of issues—human rights, the morality of preemptive war, the American interventionist mentality, and our moral obligations to the Iraqi people now as we try to leave more justly than we entered.

Sen. Barack Obama has criticized the war from the beginning. Despite his most recent "refinements" of that issue, he boasts that his plans to exit Iraq have not changed and he will began to withdraw troops immediately once he takes office. This is certainly sweet talk for voters who are anti-war that disapprove of the Bush Administration’s philosophy on foreign policy and their method of combating the war on terror.

A recent development on the ground in Iraq may cancel out or at least downplay the significance of the Iraq issue in the November elections. Essentially, regardless of who wins the presidential office, it looks like that the war will end either way “by mid-2009.”

From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. ground troops in Iraq will be mostly finished with security operations by the middle of 2009, the senior U.S. Army officer in charge of training Iraqi forces said on Wednesday.

"The ground forces will mostly be done by the middle of next year," Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

That could be between April and August, Dubik said.

Dubik declined to say when all U.S. forces, including naval and air forces, would be finished with Iraqi combat operations. He said that would depend on when the Iraqi government completes certain tasks, such as purchasing its own aircraft.

Dubik said in January that Iraqi forces could take over security in all of the country's 18 provinces by the end of 2008.

Dubik's comments come as officials in Iraq raise the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces as part of negotiations over a new security deal with Washington. U.S. officials have said they oppose setting dates for withdrawal.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Kristin Roberts)