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?

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."

A Letter To Catholic Democrats

Brothers and Sisters,

The 2008 presidential election is over and done with. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate has won. In unity with all Democrats around America, I am excited about the end of George Bush's presidency. The current president has proved to be a disaster for our country. In regard to President Bush -- I repeat -- no Democrat will find any disagreement with me. However, as a pro-life Catholic, I am terrified by the incoming Obama Administration.

Catholic Democrats are needed now more than ever. I'm not talking about the modern pro-sexual revolution feminist Catholic Democrat, who undoubtedly supported the right candidate, but pro-life traditionalist Catholic Democrats. Why? President Obama has an unprecendented position on abortion that's so extraordinarily horrifying, so unusual, and so scary that it demands immediate attention and the response of the pro-life movement. The agenda that President Obama has promised to deliver would be the greatest blow to the pro-life movement since the 1973 decision to legalize abortion.

With little surprise, the mainstream media glossed over abortion extremism as they literally campaigned for him. I know many of my fellow Catholics in the Democratic Party voted for our party's candidate. I didn't. None of that matters now. What matters now is that we all unite with the single goal of ensuring the common good, which particularly involves opposition to President Obama's agenda on abortion and embryonic stem cell research -- the latter of which, he has already indicated that he is going to reverse Bush's policy and expand efforts and fund the massive killing of embryonic human life with federal tax-payer dollars.

On the issue of abortion, Obama's actions and statements are not only outrageous morally, but they are outrageous by the standards of the Democratic Party. Obama blocked legislation to provide life-saving medical care to babies that survived abortions in an Illinois state version of a bill that soared into law unopposed in the Senate, even by staunch abortion rights' advocates like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Once Obama left the Illinois Senate, the bill unanimously passed in the state legislature. It is no exaggeration to say that the incoming President of our nation preserved a literal form of infanticide.

As if that isn't bad enough, Obama has championed the Freedom of Choice Act which would eradicate every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade. This would effectively -- in one stroke -- wipe out all fully bipartisan initiatives passed by both Democrats and Republicans in legislatures all over America to reasonably restrict abortion. It's pure madness. To "top off" this madness, Obama advocates funding abortion with tax payer dollars through the medium of a national health care plan -- as if healing a human life with medical care is fundamentally no different than destroying one in the act of an abortion.

This just begins the list. Obama doesn't support funding pregnancy crisis centers because they allegedly spread lies about women's health issues and hinder women from making choices about their health -- in essence, they don't promote and encourage abortion the way Planned Parenthood does. The list goes on.

This nightmare couldn't have worse timing. The next president is likely to nominate one or two Supreme Court Justices and the highest ranking court is finally at a tipping point, where the court had McCain won could have been in position to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now it seems that Roe v. Wade might survive another generation or two. This is not good news. Since Roe became law in 1973, in this nation alone nearly 50 million unborn children have perished. This sort of death toll makes American casualities in World War II (300,000 dead Americans) look like a picnic. In fact, the American casualities in Iraq are at best 15 days of abortion. This, of course, isn't to demean any American that has died in war or to devalue the worth of their life. But it does show the extent and seriousness of the attack on unborn human life.

We all bear moral and spiritual responsibility for the decision of America to elect Obama. Some 2,000 years ago, a good people were offered a choice between Life itself and a murderer. They chose Barabbas. Please don’t misunderstand: I’m most definitely not comparing John McCain to Jesus Christ or calling Barack Obama a killer. I’m talking about rejecting rather than choosing a Culture of Death.

We must recognize that abortion is going to be with us for some years to come. The number of years is entirely contigent on the effort we put in to stopping it. We cannot continue falling for the fancy rhetoric and word gymnastics pro-choice Democrats put forth to establish themselves as better in combatting abortion than their Republican foes. It's simply not true. Obama doesn't even support the Pregant Women Support Act advanced by pro-life Democrats. How can he find common ground with Republicans on abortion if he won't even listen to members of his own party?

What we need to realize is the chilling similarities between the arguments for slavery and thosed used to defend abortion and the absolute aburdity in rhetoric that Democrats use, i.e. "reducing the number of abortions" as common ground, as if anyone would agree to leave slavery legal and only reduce the number of slaves. Like today's pro-choicers, slaveholders said they weren't forcing anyone to own slaves. They simply pleaded for the "right" to do what they wanted with their own "property" -- conveniently, blacks didn't meet their criterion for personhood. The word "property," of course, disguised the fact that human lives and the inalienable right to liberty was at stake. The question that pro-choice Americans ask today is similar: "Do we not think a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body?" The question similarly disguises the fact that exercising these so-called "rights" involves the deliberate murder of another human being. The slaveholders' pro-choice argument also lives on in bumper stickers that read: "Against abortion? Don't have one." As if, the slogan "Against slavery? Don't own one" would be in any sense tolerable though the logic is entirely consistent from issue to issue.

For months, I watched as Catholics fell one by one into the temptation of voting for the Democratic candidate despite his pro-choice position. It was all well-crafted and well-protected behind the controversy of "single issue" voting. In doing so, many Catholics (Doug Kmiec) began to qualify Obama's pro-choice position while maintaining that they themselves were "pro-life." The same thing happened n the 2004 presidential election. There was a wave of pro-choice Americans following John Kerry's twisted logic on abortion. As the science rolls in and the facts become impossible to refute, the latest tactic was to shift the focus. Right? They'll concede it is a human life, but it does not constitute a person -- therefore, it doesn't have any rights. This rolls into the dangerous game of defining personhood based on functions. A person, in this view, is a conscious, self-aware, independent, capable rational creature. We can see where this goes in the case of euthanasia and so many other issues, e.g. people who are mentally disabled. It's even present in the argument for slavery when "personhood" conveniently defined only includes whites. Blacks didn't constitute a "whole person" and didn't have rights as a consequence.

We cannot call ourselves Catholics and tolerate this. Abortion is not just one issue among many. It's curious that we are capable of making a distinction -- when pregnancy is embraced, it's obviously a child growing in our midst; yet when it's not wanted, it's a fetus--an instantly different thing.

Those who insist on a vastly improved, compassionate network of support for women are absolute right to do so. But to suggest that the Church herself has advocated anything short of this in both action and in preaching is bogus. The allegations made by progressive Catholics about obsessive "single-issue voting" driven by some pelvic theology is junk. No one is voting on a single issue, but there is one issue that is so fundamentally evil that it constitutes a decisive opposition to a candidate endorsing it -- in the same way, the same people attacking pro-life Catholics voting against pro-choice candidates themselves would not vote for a racist candidate no matter what, nor would they vote for a pro-slavery candidate, nor would they support a pro-Final Solution genocide of the Jews candidate. Yet, when a candidate supports the federal (as well as international) funded, systematic genocide of unborn children, issues of minimum wage and the economy are of paramount importance as if human life can be priced.

The singular issue of the right-to-life is the cornerstone of all human rights. We, Catholics, are not "single-issue voters." But we cannot deny that there is one issue, without which, the ennobling others have no hope of any stability. Building a society on the right to "choice" instead of the right to life is like building a house on sand.

President Obama has been called the personification of the hope and change we all need. That's not true. The hope and change we need already came. It's the Wisdom personified that was foretold in the Old Testament. The Wisdom of God -- the Logos -- God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.

We Catholics have so much to contribute to the unfolding American political experiment -- far more than we tend to imagine -- because we bring the mercy and justice of God to society. When Americans are as ashamed of abortion as we now are of slavery, the battle will be won. I'm in trenches as a pro-life Catholic fighting for the soul of our party. Will you join me?

- Just Another Catholic Democrat

The American Identity Crisis

Now that America is post-Election 2008, the news media and political pundits -- as well as both the Democratic and Republican parties -- busy themselves with a host of questions. What went wrong? What went right? What could we have done differently? How can loss ground be made up in the 2010 Midterm Elections and again in the 2012 Presidential Elections? In many ways, people are baffled by the outcome of this election. A few people claimed that there was no way Barack Obama could win as he is the most liberal candidate to run for the United States' highest-ranking office. Obama not only won, he carried the three major swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and topped it off by turning Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia from "red" to "blue." Clinton made the argument in the primary season that no Democrat since 1916 has made it to Pennsylvania Avenue without winning West Virginia. Obama didn't carry West Virginia. It isn't conclusive yet, but it seems that he even loss Missouri by a small margin -- a state virtually no president (except one) has made it to the White House without winning for over a century.

The election is over. But what's striking to people is the electoral map. It changed. Have the demographics altered or is there something else? I think the "new kind of politics" movement -- which is essentially old politics calling itself something different -- and "Change You Can Believe In" really begs a more fundamental question. What does this "new kind of politics" consist of? What are its moral values? What will the government be like and how will the American people reach common ground ? The more specific you get with these questions, the more you realize that the Democratic President-elect Barack Obama is only delivering the Democratic Party's platform and nothing else -- nothing new, nothing wide-ranging, and nothing bipartisan.

But back to the fundamental questions that the notion of "change" brings to the table, there is a more fundamental reality that often goes unnoticed, that is at work that needs our attention. I've said before that as a Catholic Democrat, I can't help but notice the hyper-liberal, pro-sexual revolution and radical feminism movement in my party and how it has managed to silence the rest of us. To this day, I agree with Democrats often enough on policy, e.g. universal healthcare, but not always on principle, i.e. the view of the human person, of marriage, of society, and on the nature of morality and thus the content of those policies. Modern liberalism is deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinking. The human person is an arbitrary being with no real "nature." Marriage is nothing but a legal contract recognizing that two people are committed to one another -- if anyone cares -- that want government benefits. Society has no real standard or moral objective norm to live up to because human's have no inherent nature and because this is so, society is something that evolves -- it is artificial and arbitrary -- and thus it can be influenced as we see fit. This view is not the liberalism I subscribe to as it is not compatible with my Christian faith.

Though in realizing this, it strikes me that the "culture wars" in America and the political divide that is even finding its way into our churches all point to one fundamental reality: identity. In the modern world, as is held by contemporary liberalism, the notion of God is both arbritrary and dubious. Supposedly, the presence or absence of God from one's life has no substantial bearing on that person. An atheist is just as moral as any Christian. That may be well and true, but from a Christian perspective that atheist is majorly lacking. An atheist may be say "pro-life," but if human beings are nothing but a random meaningless arrangement of matter in motion -- no different in substance than a chair or a tree -- on a tiny dot called earth in a sun-beam, in a vast, cold purposeless cosmos, the idea that human beings have some sort of "dignity" or "value" is questionable. Why not destroy a few tiny cells or abort a baby? Why not kill a criminal? What really is "justice?" Why should murder be wrong, if there is no universal reason as to why it should be so? Without God, there is no objective giver of the moral law, thus no moral laws. Morality collapses on itself and becomes truly relative. But how an atheist, whose mind is composed of only matter and whose thoughts are the results of the random interaction of atoms, with no objective end or goal in mind (thus not concerned about the subject knowing any objective truth because no such reality exists), comes to any conclusion about truth, about God, etc, presupposing their views are true is beyond me. It's logically impossible.

Back to the notion of identity, America has no cultural identity. What does it mean to be an American? What are "American values?" It seems to me there are as many answers to this question as there are American people. "We the people..." as our Constitution reads have never ever been a monolithic in our way of life. This is both good and bad. Another point that is particularly relevant, especially from a Catholic perspective, is that the American political experiment in which has set the structure and molded the society in which we carry out our daily lives is wholly and entirely a Protestant experiment. In Europe, Protestantism had to establish itself within a society and culture dominated by over a millennia of Catholic intellectual, spiritual, and moral influence. Protestantism in the "new world" from its beginning did not share this dilemma, which is a manifest uniqueness to America. While Protestants share with Catholics a love of God, acknowledgement of sin and the need for conversion, a biblically-based moral system, and the necessity of family and community, Protestants also have given this country a radical emphasis on freedom, individualism, personal conscience, self-determination (versus discovering), etc. It is self-evident that the American notion of "freedom" is profoundly different than the Catholic understanding of freedom. The radical individualism, which is a result of a "sola scriptura" faith and a break from authority, imprints upon us -- I think -- a tendency to have concern only for ourselves.

Samuel Huntington, a political scientist wrote a book entitled Who Are We? He basically asserts that American identity has become increasingly more obscure. He stridently attempts to address the question in the terms of what he calls "the American Creed," which encompasses the values present in the debate that shaped America’s founding—"the essential dignity of the individual human being, of the fundamental equality of all men, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and fair opportunity." Huntington -- before he starts making claims that I disagree with and won't go into here -- believes a central problem with American political identity is the growing immigration challenge. I agree with this to an extent. The decisive turn around in American sentiment on immigration is the composition of the American immigrant populace—for the first time in our history, the majority of immigrants in the United States speak one language and are from one country—Mexico. This unprecedented reality presents a real challenge to the question of American cultural identity.

Immigration in itself naturally leads to the development of subcultures that assimilates into some larger culture. But since those subcultures are so many, so large and so dramatically different in the United States, the larger culture is simply mere co-existence, usually with a lot of tension. There was a point in early American history where people believed in manifest destiny—the notion that the United States was destined to span from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. The people of the United States, while not monolithic, really shared a common experience; this is especially true for the immediate generations after the American Revolution. But in modern America, there is no singular national destiny. Huntington says that "Americanization" -- which means things such as making English the national language or requiring that everyone at least know how to speak English -- of these groups are now-a-days really "un-American." Any attempts toward "Americanization" in Huntington's view are easily dismissed as connotative racism, sexism, class domination, religious intolerance, and so on. In essence, contemporary political correctness and cultural thinking by its design complicates attempts not only to lay down defining parameters of American identification, but toward the unity of American subcultures versus the tension of co-existence.

Most recently, I read a book called The Big Sort by Bill Bishop which I can't recommend enough. He is more on point than Huntington in my view. Bishops' thesis is simple: Americans have segregated themselves both politically and culturally. It is a natural human tendency to gravitate toward like-minded individuals. Given that at the social level, humans seek those whom they can identify with and given that the ownership of private property is a right, it follows that, if possible, people will move to places where there are people like them, which naturally makes them more comfortable. However, the often unseen consequence is that America has divided itself into communes which are entirely culturally and politically conservative or liberal. Bishop puts it this way:

America may be more diverse than ever coast to coast, but the places where we live are becoming increasingly crowded with people who live, think, and vote like we do. This social transformation didn't happen by accident. We've built a country where we can all choose the neighborhood and church and news show — most compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. And we are living with the consequences of this way-of-life segregation. Our country has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred, that people don't know and can't understand, and can barely conceive of "those people" who live just a few miles away.

This evident tendency is self-reinforcing. The more a specific region is monolithic politically, the more extreme the group can get. This, of course, turns-off people of the opposite view or those of a more moderate view, which allows the region to be even more monolithic. At the political level, local election between two parties is absurdly non-competitive. Depending on the demographics and thus, the political orientation, one party usually wins the area in a landslide. Local, or even state parties have enough support to tackle virtually every issue. As can be seen, political party primaries are dominated by partisan, party activists. At the national level, this reality translates into the non-existence of moderate candidates, a partisan nightmare, and an eternal gridlock of legislative action in Congress, a war for the presidency, and most troubling of all, the Supreme Court has become a pantheon of nine gods who we fight over to ensure they share our views. [This cannot be over-emphasized!]

This living dynamic reaffirms the tendency to only listen to opinions one agrees with, have little tolerance of other views, and to become all the more extreme in one’s own perspective. A simple glance at a presidential electoral map -- broken down into county, city-wide, state, and regional patterns -- confirms this observation (view the map and click state by state and look at the breakdown by counties.) Urban areas vote dramatically different than rural ones. People at the bottom of the socio-economic scale vote dramatically different than those at the top of the socio-economic ladder. The differences in these groups matter because if like-minded people flock toward one another, prosperity can be found at its highest where the most socio-economically advantaged reside. Bishop notes that education had always predicted city growth and after the 1970s the cities that grew the fastest and the richest were the ones where people with college degrees congregated. It's not really news that intellectual elites tend to vote Democratic and not so surprisingly, the most esteemed universities and colleges in America are in areas where the wealthy and well-educated commune.

This dynamic has found its way into American churches. Many evangelical, fundamentalist Christians – in concert – enter the world of politics with concern for abortion, marriage and family issues as top priorities – none of which are negotiable. They are the current base of the Republican Party. Other Christian denominations may emphasize a "social gospel" which entails social justice, fighting oppression and bigotry, promoting personal "choice" on abortion, and accepting gays and lesbians, which leaves them in the Democratic column. In essence, religion in America is now being interpreted through the framework of political concepts, i.e. secular schools of thought. There is "liberal" Christianity and "conservative" Christianity. Many churches have become monolithic in their political views because people even prefer to worship in like-minded congregations. It's why many Protestants "church hop," particularly if they are say, a pro-choice liberal, and the pastor consistently condemns abortion and gay rights. They'll find a church that shares their view. It seems then that the measure for the "true" church or a "good" church is how it lines up with our own political views. The use of religion as political mechanism has only deepened the divide between the people and it's alienating people from God.

Just recently in listening to two political analysts debate, one of them made the comment "the values of Republicans and Democrats [the mainstream base of both parties] are very much at odds. We do not agree about the most fundamental issues." The fundamental issues are many: abortion, birth control, gay unions, guns, education, and the environment, and many more. The parties (and the people) not only disagree on policies, but on principle. The fact that the country segregates itself into isolated communities reaffirming their own beliefs versus having a meaningful dialogue only deepens the problem. It's a spiraling cycle.

Americans have arranged themselves geographically in terms of economics and politics in the last thirty years. While the free choice of where to live is wonderful, it also naturally generates economic inequity, cultural and social misunderstandings, and political gridlock. Bishop wrote an interesting line in his book: We have created, and are creating, new institutions distinguished by their isolation and single-mindedness…we have worked quietly and hard to remove any trance of the ‘constant clashing of opinions’ from daily life. It was a social revolution…entirely unnoticed.

Fundamentally, the American people isolate themselves into groups that inevitably become partisan, political think tanks form with whole, entire comprehensive agendas that are often not open to debate or revisions by opposing groups. The question of American identity, I think, is fundamental to how the country moves forward. The question of identity must be answered before you can decide what direction you need to go. A world without God is a world without an identity. American cultural identity is one of clashing and disagreement about what America is and what she should be. In some sense, that has been America’s identity since the days when the Founding Fathers debated over the Constitution of the United States and the role and structure of the government. Today, even, that same question is still being debated.

As Roman Catholics, we may not all agree with everything I've said -- all of which are not necessarily my own view, but it should give us pause. If partisanship and factions, even within the Church, is the norm of our "culture," it is ever more pressing that we be counter-cultural. We can't ever fully support secular schools of thought because they can never, no matter how well reasoned they are, encompass the fullness of truth that is in the Gospel. It's easy to fall into the temptation of partisanship, of cultural divides, and accepting the status quo, but that's not how we're called to live. Let's hold each other accountable. It's been said that because we've been conditioned by our culture, American Catholicism is -- and I quote -- "nothing more than another form of Protestant Christianity." Let's pray that the thinker who made this claim is wrong in the long-term. If we're going to advocate social change, insight as to how we have decided to arrange ourselves may prove to be useful.

Black Genocide: Abortion and African Americans

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." How is her vision being fulfilled today?

Minority women constitute only about 26% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had over 13 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35% larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

You Can Promote Life!

From L.E.A.R.N (Life Education and Resource Network) -- http://www.learninc.org/
**************************

Dr. Alveda King, on behalf of the African American Culture of Life Movement:

Our mission includes a dedication to restoring family values with the possibility of strengthening the Black family unit by restoring respect for marriage between a mother and a father devoted to sharing the responsibility or raising their children together. We consider marriage and parenting classes to be a significant deterrent to teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion. By revisiting family values initiatives; by encouraging delayed gratification strategies in matters of processes that effect our health and well being; by offering assistance such as educational and cost of living incentives to young married couples starting out with babies and young children; we expect to produce strong and healthy families where babies, children and their parents are safe and able to reach their full potential in life. If you as Congressional leaders could craft legislation to redirect funding streams towards life affirming solutions, we are sure that you could garner support and encouragement from sources that are waiting to assist you.

Because the government has an ability to avow life, we offer our voice in support of life affirming efforts including informing the communities how to embrace life affirming educational and preventive solutions to sickness and diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases; social challenges such as teen pregnancy, harmful addictions to drugs, violence, pornography, promiscuity and abortion; educational deficits; economic barriers and inequities; unfair judicial treatment and the plethora of problems and issues that face Black Americans.

We believe that the wellbeing of our youth is fundamental because they are a vital connection to the survival of the human family. The perpetuity of the human race is continued through the procreative process of the fundamental model of marriage reflected in the union between one man and one woman.

The broader community is an extension of the healthy and functional family unit. The strength of a nation springs from the value of human life, dignity and civil rights in every stage, from the womb to the tomb. America is being weakened at an alarming rate due to the high rise of genocide impacting Blacks and other minorities. Currently, African Americans make up 12% of the nations population but suffers 36% of the abortions performed on women in this nation. The Hispanic community in America is steadily replacing the Black work force and middle class in America, yet the Hispanic community suffers 22% of the abortions performed. Add to these statistics the alarming rates of heart disease, hypertension, deaths by HIV/AIDS, breast and prostate cancer, and other diseases that kill Blacks at higher rates than other ethnic groups living in America. Condoms and calories are not the solution to filling the spiritual and emotional voids that are beleaguering our people. Instant gratification is causing more problems when we are in need of more solutions. This pattern is another link to the undeniable genocidal force that is attacking minorities in America.

Let us assure you that you are not alone in your quest to forge a better tomorrow. We welcome the opportunity to share statistics driven by the culture of death, and seek your wisdom in crafting solutions springing from the culture of life to these problems that weigh heavily on our nation and our people. By examining the mission and core values of the parties invited to the table as it were, we can perhaps come away richer than we were when we started on our journey to find the answers together. We remain optimistic and engaged in the hopes that we can all see a brighter day and a better way. Thank you for your interest, your compassion and your life of service.

The Genocide in Darfur

The conflict in Darfur has been going on since July 2003. The conflict centers mainly on the part of African rebel factions, the government backed janjaweed and Sudanese government itself. The conflicted originated with black African rebels began demandign more political power within the government. As a result, the government let loose the militia called the "janjaweed" who have been attacking black villages: burning houses, and killing and raping innocent civilians. Though the Sudanese government claims no associationw with the janjaweed, they have given money and assistance to the militia who are responsible for ethinic massacres. Currently, the struggle has progressed into an even more violent power struggle for rebels, the janjaweed and government forces for control over resources and money. The Sudanese government renewed its bombing campaign in late 2006 and 2007 upon areas said to be "under rebel control" on a daily basis, resulting in even more deaths and displacement.

The situation in Darfur has spread far beyond the region. Neighboring countries have become involved by taking in refugees as as well as other areas of Sudan. Many of those displaced as well are now living in camps, completely dependent upon international aid. Those in need of assistance amounts to roughly 4 millions, which is approximately two-thirds of the population of Sudan.

A more subtle player in all of this, is China. China is the main oil trade partner with Sudan (they buy somewhere around 40% of its oil). The trade agreement between these two has caused China to consistently vote against U.N. sanctions against Sudan. Even worse, the U.N. has refused to declare the situation in Darfur as a genocide.

More information about Darfur can be found here.

FACE AIDS: A Growing Crisis

Frequently in discourse with non-Catholics, or some Catholics even, when the issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic arises, there is uneasiness about the Church’s teaching on dealing with this deeply troubling matter. One might argue that by maintaining opposition to the use of condoms, the Catholic Church contributes rather to the spread of AIDS in Africa, for if the “Vatican hierarchy” cared more about people’s lives than rigid doctrines that even most Catholics reject, they would change their view to prevent the spread of AIDS. Why? It is the more “pro-life” thing to do given that it would save millions from dying from unprotected sex.

While the presented argument is well-intentioned, it is also profoundly incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t oppose contraception on the basis that it is a “nice rule” that Catholics should follow, but rather contraception is contra-human nature—it is an objective, moral evil that disrupts the purity and creative design of the sexual act. Much can be said on the matter, but what is relevant is that by isolating sexual pleasure from the procreative element built into the sexual act itself, one subconsciously (and consciously) affirms the sinful tendencies of lust, self-gratification, and promiscuity.

Why? If a man can sleep with multiple women (separately or even together) and experience sexual pleasure in abundance without any concern of producing children in doing so, he’ll be inclined to do it—and maybe he’ll become addicted to it (‘it’ being sexual pleasure). The result? Men objectify women, see them as objects and not as equals; men (and women too) have routine, recreational and meaningless sex unconcerned with reproduction because that “problem” has been solved. The consequences of such actions are grave and unfortunate. Not only is such action self-destructive objectively for all persons involved, it is harmful to society. Naturally such behavior leads to single mothers and dire poverty, abortions, the oppression of women, skyrocketing divorce, the growth of other vices, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To the issue of AIDS — statistics repeatedly show that condoms really have not been very effective in the fight against AIDS despite the fact it has been the principal prevention device for the last twenty years. Billions of condoms have been shipped to Africa in order to deal with the epidemic. The countries that stress condom use are not seeing any great decline in the virus, but rather, the opposite. Luckily, there is a clear example of an African nation turning back the epidemic of AIDS by other means. In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections. Currently, instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.

Some might assume, “Well, some protection is better than none.” Of course, this would seem to be a logical argument at first. After all, condom use can reduce the odds of HIV transmission during an act of intercourse. But it still remains that in the presence of an epidemic, unless a person changes his or her behavior, it may be only a matter of time before he or she is infected. When people are not taught the difference and are left thinking that risk reduction equals protection, they are more open to take risks that they cannot afford. Another reason why condoms have failed to stop AIDS is that when a person is infected with other STDs, they are up to five times as likely to get HIV if exposed. There are several reasons why this occurs; one reason is that many STDs cause sores that can serve as portals of entry for the virus. For example, a woman’s reproductive tract is often able to protect her from HIV. However, this natural barrier is compromised when she is infected with certain STDs. Considering that the number one determinant of STD infection is multiple sexual partners, any strategy to stop HIV that does not reduce sexual activity will have limited effect.

Why is abstinence so effective? In abstinence programs, people are encouraged to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and are encouraged to be tested for HIV regularly. The contraceptive approach doesn’t take a fundamental reality into much consideration: the infectivity rate of HIV. The infectivity rate of a disease or virus measures the likelihood of its transmission. For HIV, it is estimated on average, the odds of being infected with HIV through a single act of intercourse (without a condom) is about one in a thousand. However, when a person is first infected with HIV, he or she is highly contagious. But if this person were to get tested for HIV right away, the test would show that he or she is HIV negative, despite the fact that he or she does have the virus and can easily transmit it. Here’s why: Technically, the HIV test does not look for HIV, but for antibodies against the virus. Antibodies are what your body creates to fight off intruders. But viruses are pretty smart and it can take months before your body knows that you have one (and maybe even a decade before you know it). So if your body does not know that you have been infected with HIV, it won’t produce antibodies to attack the virus. So if the HIV test doesn’t find the antibodies, the doctors will tell you that you’re HIV negative. Meanwhile inside the body of a newly infected person, the HIV plasma viral level is very high, especially in the genital fluids (semen and cervical-vaginal fluids), because there aren’t any antibodies around to reduce their levels. Since the viral load is thousands of times higher, and the person is shedding viruses, the infectivity rate soars in the early weeks on infection.

This means that if people abstained from sex or were encouraged to wait until marriage (rather than seeing sex as a recreational activity that you can just “band-aid” with a condom), then the odds of HIV transmission would be reduced dramatically. Within a generation, HIV would no longer exist at its current epidemic levels.

Why is this important? AIDS is a transnational global health phenomenon that isn’t unique to third world countries. The Democratic Party is very concerned about this growing epidemic and often ranks it high in their list of things to do. This is certainly commendable. But, the Democrats endorse a strategy—wanton distribution of condoms—that has proven fatal and ineffective. It perhaps even makes the situation worse. The Republican Party under the leadership of President Bush began to promote abstinence in Africa (which works), but this is not very high on the list of things to do despite the fact that this is an international health crisis that is spreading at an alarming rate. In essence, neither party is giving us much needed headway. Democrats simply wish to throw money and condoms at these people (nothing surprising there); Republicans cut funding and promote abstinence. (nothing surprising there either; I’ll add here, I’m not opposed to budget cutting given domestic problems, if we’re advocating for more international support in place of solely American money).

On a side, but relevant, note, I think it can be agreed upon that the most common view of many American Catholics is that the Republican Party is comprehensively right on family, marriage, and the “life issues,” while the Democratic Party is more in alignment with the Church’s teachings on “social justice.” I can easily see how a person falls into the temptation of this sort of thinking, but I do think it’s profoundly mistaken.

If we were to follow the just-described view, the Democrats are better positioned to combat the global AIDS epidemic—which is regarded as a “life issue” and one issue among many others (healthcare, war, etc.) that Catholics use to support pro-choice Democratic candidates, namely, a collect set of issues they deem Democrats better equipped in to bring about “social justice.”

I personally sympathize with their view. Nevertheless, a well-formed Catholic conscience begs to differ and would see the profoundly flawed thinking in strategy that is far from life-affirming, thus, no social justice at all. We can’t settle for what the media tells us nor the latest novelties or refashioned dishonest rhetoric of liberal-partisan groups like Catholics United. Additionally, the fact that the Democratic Party is profoundly wrong in strategy doesn’t lead us to just settle with current Republican efforts—much more can be done.

This can’t be a small matter for Catholics. Every 11 seconds someone dies from AIDS. We can’t call ourselves morally coherent and pro-life if we stand by idly as this horrendous cancer fueled by sin kills our brothers and sisters. Are we not our brother’s keeper?

Pray for those with AIDS.

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).

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion

It’s often said that “nobody is pro-abortion.” In fact, this was uttered by Senator Barack Obama at the last presidential debate. Perhaps no one is, though admittedly people’s political actions make a hard case for this proposition. Nevertheless, I think a careful distinction needs to be made between ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-abortion.’ It isn’t bogus to think so, either.

These are two distinct positions, both of which are contrary to Catholic teaching on the matter of abortion. The ‘pro-choice’ position is rooted in moral relativism and thus, posits no judgment on the moral good or evil of the act of abortion. At best, a ‘pro-choice’ position will concede that grappling with the decision to have an abortion, or worse, having one is a position no woman desires to find herself in, thus we should reduce the number of abortions. This is the point where their argument breaks down. The lack of objectivity hinders a ‘pro-choice’ individual from framing in any meaningful way their personal opposition that cannot be imposed or any reason why we should really commit ourselves to limiting the number of abortions. Either way, this position holds abortion should be left legal so that those who choose it may do so.

The ‘pro-abortion’ position views abortion not only as a legal right, but as morally good either as a means or an end in and of itself. Margaret Sanger is arguably pro-abortion because it was the mechanism by which she wished to eliminate black people. Someone who is ‘pro-abortion’ may see it as a means of population control, which is allegedly a problem, and so forth.

Both positions are absurd, but there is a subtle difference between the two and perhaps the fundamental difference is one’s intention, though the end often remains the same.

I think any good Catholic should be aware of this, particularly in dialogue with someone who is pro-choice. Christ preached charity and compassion. If we cannot dialogue with our brothers and sisters who are profoundly mistaken without labeling them as ‘baby killers’ or ‘pro-abortion’ explicitly (though it may otherwise be true), we are in some ways alienating those who may be receptive to the pro-life message if it is presented in a kind, understanding way, e.g. understanding a ‘pro-choice’ person’s concern for the woman involved, but calmly (I can’t emphasize this enough) explaining why being pro-woman is truly to be pro-life and that society should be pro-motherhood so that no woman feels she is incapable of welcoming her child into this world.

This is a fundamental element missing from the abortion debate. There is profound temptation to attack the other side or worse, respond to their attacks with even more disdain. A house divided against itself will not stand nor will it save unborn children. Are we in this for our pride or to save unborn human life?

Why The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

By now we have all heard of the Middle Eastern religious and political “dissident” taken captive by a Western government, interrogated, ridiculed, made to endure denigrating postures, beaten and eventually killed.

His name? Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years later, Christ remains with us, and so does torture. Meditating on the sufferings of Christ ought to help bring Christians to call for an end to torture, particularly in America. The painful scourging, the mocking crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion were carried out with state sanction.

This relates directly to the controversy of interrogation (torture) at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful to see many Catholic politicians, including pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, in favor of this horrendous endeavor and the continual existence of Guantanamo.

The safety of the American people is fundamental. Nevertheless, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and their dignity—and the rights that flow from it—is inviolable. Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Catholics, especially politicians, should stand with the Church and not with the arbitrary, and at times unjust will of the State.

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.

House Rejects Legislative Bailout

From the Washington Post: 'Why the Bailout Bill Failed'

So how could a major bill described by the president and both parties' leaders as critical to the well-being of the nation's -- and the world's -- economy go down to defeat?

There are no easy answers here, as the House's stunning defeat moments ago of the financial bailout legislation is putting us into seemingly uncharted territory. But while the final tally, with 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting no, was a surprise -- all morning, Hill sources were predicting narrow passage -- the signs were there that the measure was in trouble:

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn't, it's because the bill's proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon -- give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the "bailout" label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a "rescue" measure, it was too late.

2) Vulnerables Scared. If you have a difficult reelection race, what was your motivation to vote for this bill? "I voted in favor of a bill that I didn't really like, because I had no choice," doesn't make for a particularly snappy campaign slogan. "I stood up to my party and Wall Street," sounds much better. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) both made the argument that lawmakers needed to rise to the occasion and not think of their own political futures. But members of Congress ALWAYS think of their political futures. It's much easier to talk of sacrifice for the greater good when you're going to get reelected with 70 percent of the vote, like nearly every leader on both sides of the aisle will.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who's running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn't do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven't been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn't a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren't threatened. They (probably) weren't bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum.

4) Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn't like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives' most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill's failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a "bailout" of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn't have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

5) Partisanship? House Republican leaders gave a press conference right after the vote, and they have strongly suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) floor speech toward the end of the debate was at least partly to blame for the loss. "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house," Boehner said.

It's too early to know whether Pelosi's speech, which laid much of the blame for the whole financial crisis at the foot of the Bush administration, really made much of a difference. But if several House Republicans actually did switch their votes on a momentous piece of legislation just because they were irritated by a speech, what does that say about them? As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mockingly characterized the GOP's argument: "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I'm going to punish the country."

It's possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren't taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today's vote.

Click here to see Nancy Pelosi's speech.
Click here to see GOP responses.

'No' To The Bailout and 'Yes' to Healthcare

Save Lives Instead of Bankers' Bloated Pay
Michael R. Sesit

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the U.S. government has proposed bailing out the pin-stripe and Gucci crowd, it's about time it adopted a universal health program for the common folk.

After all, if you're going to socialize financial risk, it isn't a big intellectual leap to conclude that the same ought to be done for health care. It's also morally the right thing to do, especially after George W. Bush's administration decided to have the American taxpayer pick up the tab for the misdeeds of what is probably the wealthiest segment of the population.

Saving someone's life is more uplifting than preserving Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack's bonus. That's right, saving a life. An estimated 22,000 people age 25-64 in the U.S. died in 2006 -- and 137,000 from 2000 through 2006 -- because they lacked health insurance, according to an Urban Institute study in January.

About 41 million people in the U.S. will be uninsured throughout 2008, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. For various reasons, an additional 36 million will go without health insurance for part of the year. That 77 million total represents a quarter of the U.S. population and 94 percent of Germany's. It is also 33 percent larger than Italy's.

In 2006, U.S. health-care spending amounted to 15.3 percent of gross domestic product and $6,714 per capita, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That compares with 11.3 percent of GDP and $4,311 for Switzerland, and 11.1 percent and $3,449 for France. The OECD average was 8.9 percent of GDP and per-capita expenditure of $2,824.

No Universal Coverage

Although the U.S. spends more on health care than other developed countries, it's the only major industrialized nation that doesn't offer comprehensive coverage to all citizens.

Twenty-seven of the 30 OECD member countries offer universal, or near-universal, health coverage. Besides the U.S., only Mexico and Turkey don't. Almost half of all Americans cited the cost of health care as their No. 1 economic concern in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last year.

Now for a brief summary of the numbers. The uninsured will pay $30 billion out-of-pocket for health care this year and receive an additional $56 billion in so-called uncompensated care provided by hospitals, community organizations and physicians, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Federal and state funds will indirectly cover about $43 billion of that, private charities the rest.

If all uninsured people were to gain insurance coverage and use similar amounts of care as the currently insured, overall costs would increase by $123 billion, the foundation says.

Wall Street Bailouts

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are on the hook for $29 billion of dodgy mortgage securities relating to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s acquisition of Bear Stearns Cos.; $85 billion for the rescue of American International Group Inc.; and as much as $200 billion to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In addition, there is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout fund and whatever losses may result from insuring $3.4 trillion of money-market mutual funds.

Thus, in current dollars, the finance industry's aggregate bailout package could theoretically fund the incremental $123 billion increase needed to achieve universal health coverage for more than eight years.

Other ways the financial-services industry could contribute to a national-health system include an increase in the capital- gains duty, a turnover levy on securities transactions and a more progressive income tax that raises charges on the wealthy. And instead of relieving banks of their ailing mortgage securities, the government should get ownership stakes for taxpayers' contributions, which could later be sold if the bailout succeeds.

$2 Trillion

Then there's the Iraq fiasco, which may eventually cost U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion to $2 trillion. That's eight to 16 times the annual $123 billion incremental figure.

A comprehensive national-health program also makes good business sense for three reasons. First, the lost productivity associated with the poor health and shortened life spans of the uninsured cost the U.S. economy $102 billion to $204 billion in 2006, according to a March report published by the Health Policy Program of the New America Foundation.

"The economic cost imposed on the nation by the uninsured is as much as, and perhaps greater than, the public cost of covering them,'' the authors said.

Two, a national health system would help the U.S. attract investment because it relieves companies of a costly direct expense. This was one motive behind Toyota Motor Corp.'s 2005 decision to build a vehicle plant in Canada, instead of the U.S.

No Incentives

Three, after adjusting health-care spending to reflect America's higher GDP per capita, the U.S. in 2005 still spent more -- $1,645 per individual, or $477 billion -- on health care than peer countries with comprehensive health insurance, even though Americans aren't any sicker than others, according to a study last year by McKinsey & Co.

Much of the higher spending was attributed to the costly administrative structure of the U.S. system and its failure to provide incentives for patients to be value-conscious and for providers "to promote rational supply,'' the firm said.

"Despite higher costs, the United States does not deliver objectively better quality and access for U.S. citizens as a whole, relative to peer countries,'' McKinsey said.

Still, if taxpayers are expected to bail out Wall Street, they ought to demand something for themselves and their fellow citizens.

Senate Passes Bipartisan Adoption Bill

The U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (HR 6893) on Monday, September 23. "This is the most significant legislation relating to adoption and foster care since the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997," said Tom Atwood, President and CEO of NCFA. "It provides for a wide array of reforms to benefit children and their interest in adoption."

The reforms in HR 6893 include: Reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives Program, whereby the federal government allocates financial rewards to states that have increased the number of children adopted from their foster care system, through 2013; Increasing the award amounts states stand to receive through the Adoption Incentives Program by establishing 2007 as the new "base year" against which future performance will be measured, and increasing the bonuses for special needs and older child adoptions; Ensuring all children with special needs adopted out of foster care are eligible for federal adoption assistance regardless of family income by 2018; Mandating that states inform prospective adoptive parents regarding eligibility for the adoption tax credit; Requiring states to make reasonable efforts to place siblings together; Establishing relative guardianship assistance payments in a way that does not creative incentives for relative guardianship over adoption; and Allowing states the option of extending adoption assistance, foster care maintenance and relative guardianship assistance payments to children aged 18, 19 or 20.

Christian Ethics and American Law

The American political debate is a heated landscape—a landscape that is not at all lacking in general presuppositions, that are undeniably philosophical in nature, that are scarcely brought to intellectual scrutiny. One might declare that some law is ‘unjust,’ or that this law in favor of the ‘common good.’ Another person may say certain public policies violate basic ‘human rights.’ Each of these claims presupposes that there is some universal norm by using words such as 'justice' and 'common good' that everyone is aware of, that has moral implications, and that we all have an obligation to uphold.

What is most concerning is the post-modern tendency to say that moral principles and the law should not be connected. Morality should not be legislated. This is a common American notion. While this problematic assertion can be approached in many ways, I think the most fundamental question that should be asked is, what is law?

It seems to me that the common American idea of law is a set of rules set forth by the State that are enforced by a credible threat of force and punishment. There is something undoubtedly true about that proposition, but does it fully capture the essence of the law? Are we prepared to accept that the law is merely a matter of obedience and control? Sure, obedience and control have something to do with effective laws, but do they adequately define the nature of the law? If so, what distinguishes the ‘just’ laws from ‘unjust’ laws? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps all laws are simply expressions of the will-to-power of an individual or a group. But if this is so, what are we really saying when we complain about ‘unjust’ laws? Is it merely anger because our self-interests have failed to win over the self-interests of others?

That may be so, but it would be undeniably strange. Why? Because the human experience has shown us that there is a difference between asserting our own wants and true ‘justice’—whatever that is. Children and adolescents commonly accuse their parents of being ‘unfair’ for not giving them something they want. But is that the same as, say, Martin Luther King saying that it was ‘unfair’ for the State of Alabama to refuse to allow African Americans to enroll in its universities? Both statements involve a claim on others. It seems safe to say that we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no substantial difference between the two.

When parents deny children something they want, there is no universal moral reason as to why a child must have, say, a particular toy. The only reason a child may have to claim ‘unfairness’ against their parents is their own desires. Martin Luther King in his Letter From Birmingham Jail argued that rights due to him by virtue of the natural law, by virtue of his humanity were unjustly denied him and any laws protecting this injustice are not laws at all.

It is clear that Dr. King believed that laws are designed to protect justice. He also presupposes a natural moral order that we humans can know and must conform ourselves to. Is he right? I think so. What if he isn’t? What would that mean? Consider this. Adolf Hitler legalized every action he made while in power in Nazi Germany. Does legal status, morally qualify his actions, particularly the 6 million Jews that perished at his command? Did the legal status of slavery make it morally acceptable? It strikes me that most Americans would agree that Hitler did immoral deeds and slavery is immoral. But that same majority of Americans accepts the horror of abortion as the status quo and often cites that it won’t be illegal anytime soon. Or, they claim that the legality of abortion won’t stop women from seeking abortions. So why stop it?

The problem is abortion is murder. Take for instance the act of murder. Why is murder against the law? There are two reasons. One, to allow citizens to kill one another would produce anarchy and is against the interest of the State. Two, murder is an objective moral evil that is contrary to human nature. It is self-evident that the second reason has more bearing than the first. The convenience of outlawing murder for the State to maintain order is a by-product of the reality that the act of killing innocents is contrary to the moral order of the universe and that the endorsement of the action itself cannot yield any good or productivity for any human society.

One might ask, what does it all matter? It matters because it affects each and every individual in society. Why might we say that African Americans have a right to liberty over slavery? One might argue that slavery—free labor—is beneficial to the American economy and thus, the ‘common good.’ So why not allow slavery? Are there really any inviolable human rights that cannot be gone against no matter what profit or convenience doing so may yield? I certainly think there are.

We live in a society of ‘rights.’ We all have a right to something and we’ll be damned if anyone takes those rights away. But where do rights come from? In the modern, agnostic, morally relative world of scientific materialism all we are, is a collection of atoms no different in substance than that of a desk or a television. The universe in itself has no meaning and no purpose, which logically means that there is no meaning or purpose to our lives. If that’s true, what are ‘rights’ especially if we arguably have no meaning, and therefore, no dignity?

The notion of ‘natural rights’ was developed in the Catholic intellectual tradition in contribution to the philosophy of law. A fundamental concern for America is whether or not it is possible to preserve the notion of ‘natural rights’ without the Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person and of human nature which the notion of the natural law has been traditionally based. Can the idea of a natural law stand if we’re nothing but a random assortment of matter on a tiny dot that we call earth in a vast and meaningless cosmos? The short answer is no.

These questions are pressing. Western society is dominated by moral relativism, which leads ultimately to moral decay. We have come to idolize the biblical figure Cain in not wanting to be our brother’s keeper. America is in dire need of a strong, vibrant Christian presence to transform this debate and give it moral clarity. It is an imperative that there is an awareness of the origin of laws and a proper understanding of the moral and intellectual principles of interest in the American legal system—inalienable rights, civil liberties, federalism, separation of powers, etc.

This is why it upsets me that some Christians pull their children out of the public schooling system—still leaving millions of other children to go through the broken system—and refuse to be at the front of the campaign for American education reform so that Christian moral principles are not disregarded or given merely lip service. We need to return philosophy to our education system and instill moral values.

More importantly, Christians must be more than a force to illegalize abortion in the public square. It is vital that we are able to articulate our Christian moral perspective through rational and philosophical discourse because this vital tool (philosophy)—has been virtually eliminated and trivialized in western society—is the only way we may help America rediscover those human and moral truths that are written into the nature of the human person.

The 2010 Texas Governor’s Race

What we all have feared has come to fruition. Texas Governor Rick Perry—already the longest serving governor in Texas history—announced that he is seeking to turn ten years in office to fourteen years. With the 2010 Governor’s Race around the corner, many Republicans are urging Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson to run against him. I honestly cannot see how she would lose the Republican primary against him.

From the 2006 Midterm Elections, it is clear that 61% of Texans are ready for another governor and hopefully we can line up strongly behind a single candidate to stop him, either in the primary or in the fall election itself.

Moreover with Texas legislatures and the State Supreme Court being under Republican control, I would not at all mind a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion if the life issues are safeguarded for at least one term, or maybe even two terms. (Not that I'd vote for that Democrat if he or she is pro-choice).

None of this comes as a surprise to me. Perry was George W. Bush’s Lieutenant Governor and he has carried on the Bush legacy—failure. All the Democrats have to ask the voters is this: do they want “a third Perry term” or “is it time for a change?” This seems to have created a circus on the national level that has played much to their favor—at least until McCain chose Palin.

Nevertheless, it remains that after over a decade of predominant Republican leadership, Texas schools are facing a massive budget crisis and continued budget cuts, terrible performances on standardized testing, scandals that have racked the Texas Youth Commission, soaring college tuitions that have amounted to a middle class tax increase, over a billion dollars in highway funds that were “lost” while toll roads are being outsourced to foreign corporations, Texas is leading the nation in children who have no health insurance, and the list goes on.

“Governor 39% of the Vote” can run again and the Democrats will win in 2010.

Knights of Columbus: Vote for Life and Family

Nearing the close of their 126th Supreme Convention in Quebec City on Thursday, the Knights of Columbus approved resolutions calling for the legal protection of marriage and asking Catholics holding elected office to “be true” to their faith by acting “bravely and publicly in defense of life.”

In one resolution at the fraternal charitable organization’s annual convention, the Knights called for “legal and constitutional protection ... for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The resolution declares that marriage is a “natural institution based on ancient human values” that over time has become a “unique and deeply rooted social, legal and religious institution.”

Marriage, the resolution said, provides the best environment in which to protect children and also “reflects the natural biological complementarity between man and woman which predates the state and which is woven into the social and religious fabric of every major culture and society.”

Another resolution passed by the Knights advocates building a “culture of life” and opposing “any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other offenses against life.”

Knights of Columbus delegates also exhorted “our fellow Catholics who are elected officials to be true to the faith they claim to profess by acting bravely and publicly in defense of life.” Such officials, the resolution advised, should affirm with Pope Benedict XVI that “there can be no room for purely private religion.”

The resolution reaffirmed the organization’s policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event persons “who do not support the legal protection of unborn children.”

In his opening convention address delivered earlier this week, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson urged Catholic voters to “stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians” and to “say ‘no’” to every political candidate who supports abortion.

Other resolutions passed at the convention addressed religious freedom, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, decency on the internet and in the media, Catholic education, and the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

The Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest organization of Catholic laymen, was founded in 1882 and has more than 1.75 million members around the world.

Archbishop Chaput Admonishes Nancy Pelosi

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE: A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief. Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver