The rondeau a la turkey goes on. A British reader writes to chide me of my enthusiasm for Governor Palin's blood-soaked photo op:
I'm afraid you and everyone who sees things the same way as you do are completely missing the point about this story. You may be doing so deliberately, because you're a very bright guy. But you surely have a responsibility to your more doltish readers.
The point isn't that turkeys shouldn't be slaughtered, or that it's somehow news that they are, or that Palin ought to have been more delicate for the sake of the frigging turkeys.
The point is that it's unbelievably ill-judged to stand in front of something that is more interesting than you are when giving a TV interview. That, my friend, is the joke. It would have been funny whichever pol stood there. That and the sheer, apolitical comedy of those images. Get it? Course you do.
That first principle is particularly important when you have nothing, nothing whatsoever, of any interest to say. Although maybe the opposite applies - at least we had something to look at whilst SP dispensed the usual stream of incoherent platitudes which presumably you hear as folksy wisdom of the hills. I mean, do you really? God help us. Or you.
Well, you're right that it might be "unbelievably ill-judged" to stand in front of something distracting when you're announcing, say, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. But in this case Sarah Palin was merely indulging in the wearily obligatory annual leaden cutesiness of issuing a gubernatorial pardon to some designated Thanksgiving bird in order to provide the local news shows with their traditional unfunny "funny story" for the "And finally..." closing item. Viewers owe her a debt of gratitude for choosing to perform this dreary ritual in front of a backdrop that entirely undermined it.
And, while you're right that "it would have been funny whichever pol stood there", ask yourself whether the media would even have noticed had Joe Biden done such a thing. That's what upgraded it from mildly infelicitous to side-splitting hilarious - not the footage, but the po-faced huffing of the shrieking nancies at MSNBC and the portentous plonkers at The New York Times:
You don't have to be a huge animal lover to question why Governor Palin chose to be interviewed — while issuing a traditional seasonal pardon of a turkey — while turkeys were being executed in the background.
And that's Sarah Palin's real stroke of genius in these difficult times for the global economy. For, in an age when the government picks which banks to nationalize and which banks to fail, and guarantees mortgages that should never have been issued, and prepares to demand that those taxpayers with responsible and affordable pension plans prop up the lavish and unsustainable pension programs of Detroit, Governor Palin has given us a great teaching moment and a perfect snapshot of what my Brit reader would recognize as pre-Thatcher "industrial policy":
When the government decides it can "pick winners" and spare them from the realities of the market, everyone else gets bled to death.
Thank you, Sarah. It's the first election ad of Campaign '12.
MARK STEYN THE CORNER NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE 22 NOV 08
*************** I LOVE IT! THE HYPOCRISY OF THE PALIN HATERS! They are currently outraged that she would give an interview at a turkey farm in Alaska while turkeys are being bled in the background. I am sure than none of the outraged Palin Haters will eat any turkey this or any other Thanksgiving. Yeah, right! Byron York has come up with a brilliant suggestion. He suggests that Palin do her next interview in a Planned Parenthood abortuary as innocent babies are being slaughtered in the background. -Leo Rugiens
Below this letter is a second, entitled "A Possible Constitutional Crisis", which I wrote prior to the Nov. 4th election. You may freely share my correspondence with anyone, if you wish. As I mentioned in that letter, moral issues drove me to write in defense of my Faith and the UNBORN.
Though Pres.Elect Barack Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, a growing number of lawsuits claiming otherwise must be addressed promptly since their claims, if substantiated, would make him ineligible to assume the Office of President of the United States. An attorney, Mr. Philip Berg,Esq., of Philadelphia, Pa. has carried his lawsuit up to Justice Souter of your Court. All the particulars concerning this case including the reasons for his lawsuit have been presented to Justice Souter.
I am aware of many lawsuits filed in State Courts, all claiming that Pres.-Elect Obama was not born in Hawaii. The proof, or disproof of these claims may rest in part with his birth certificate on file with the Government of Hawaii. Unfortunately, all efforts to have him release a verifiable birth certificate have been met with a stony silence and a refusal to authorize the release of such. The Media, also, has been strangely quiet about releasing any information about this. A "certificate of live birth" (COLB) copy was posted on an Obama website months ago and declared by him to have been reproduced from an original in his possession. Many independent examiners have declared that the web posting is , in fact, a fraudulent document. Their challenge is not against what is on the certificate but what is not on it: no hospital of birth, no doctor's name, no witnesses, no government signature or seal, no identifying birth certificate number (the number is blacked out). All of these concerns, if wrong, could easily be dismissed by his immediately authorizing the Hawaiian authority to release a certified copy of his original birth certificate to the Courts but he refuses to cooperate, in spite of the mounting number of legal challenges surfacing weekly in attempts to arrive at the truth. Is this the transparency the Pres.-Elect offers to the American people ?
Senator John McCain fought for our Country and suffered for five and one half years in a Vietman prison for his patriotism. He has been truly "vetted", both by war and by law, and confirmed as an American lawfully entitled to seek the Office of President.. In contrast, Senator(now Pres.-Elect) Obama has exhibited complete secrecy regarding his eligibility for the same Office. Birth records, school records, Selective Service records,etc.....all withheld or only submitted under pressure. Did he fear that any or all of these documents might have contained information which would bar him from running for elective office under the U.S. Constitution, as, for example, possibly identifying him as a foreign national ? Something to reflect on: The Vietnamese knew more about John McCain than most Americans know about Barack Obama !
When "Joe, the plumber" (Joseph Wurzelbacher) became an Ohio "celebrity" the Democratic Party lost no time in gaining access to and airing his financial records and other details about him, in an attempt to "mute" his voice. In contrast, the Party was very silent or dismissive about inquiries arising regarding Obama's birth certificate. In fairness, the head of the Democratic Commission in Alaska, which found Governor Sarah Palin innocent of misconduct, graciously said that they were making their findings public before the election, so as not to leave a "cloud of suspicion" hanging over her head. Now that's transparency. It is too bad that a man who would be President refuses to display that same transparency.
If anyone were to accuse me of "grasping at straws" after the Election, I would plead "guilty, as charged", for to stand by while an incoming Administration, led by a secretive Pres.-Elect is preparing to completely open the "bloodgates" and unleash the abortion industry upon an estimated additional 125,000 infants yearly would be indefensible ! Oh yes-if anyone raised a claim of "racism" as a reason for my writing, I would simply suggest that they run that idea past Alan Keyes, a prominent, well-known black man who previously ran for President of the United States and recently filed his own lawsuit in California, challenging the right of Pres-Elect Obama to seek the Office of President. If they also considered Mr.Keyes as "racist" I guess they believe that he is Caucasian.
In conclusion, may I say that unless Pres.-Elect Obama submits definite proof that he has not circumvented the U.S. Constitution as to his elegibility for this Office, he will be escalating a crisis which has already reached the highest Court in our Land through his silence.. As that silence continues so does the number of lawsuits. At my last count that now has reached eighteen.
GOD ASSEMBLES-mankind disassembles (graphically) !
This letter is about a man who said that, on his first day in office, he would make time to sign a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) bill, thereby consigning an estimated one hundred twenty five thousand infants to death yearly ! No hesitation on his part there, but that same man has no time, or is it "intention",to produce a legitimate birth certificate which could confirm his authority to sign such a bill. Referring to an ad from Senator Clinton's campaign, he implied that he, in fact, would be the one ready "from day one" to take a three AM call from anywhere in the World. I have one question...."would that include Hawaii "?
A glaring fact keeps recurring, which cannot be ignored. Each time Pres-Elect Obama's legal team(s) goes into court their defense is to challenge the claimant's right to sue him. Never once did they present a certified birth certificate which may have won their case for them. Are they inept ? I don't believe so. Do they fear the consequences of such a disclosure " I do think so. If he has the legal right to assume the Presidency of the United States let it be confirmed by evidence so that all will recognize that right, even those in opposition to him. If, on the other hand, he has no legal right to the Office let the Supreme Court or other empowered governing body declare him ineligible.
Your Honor, on Jan.20,2009, Pres.-Elect Obama will be asked to take an oath to defend our Constitution. If he is not a natural-born citizen, as required by the Constitution, his oath would be invalid. I earnestly request that the Supreme Court act on this grave issue before it by instructing Pres.-Elect Obama to immediately provide the documents requested in the lawsuits so that his true status may be determined and a Constitutional Crisis averted.
Approximately 230 years ago the Revolutionary War began. When it ended, the United States of America was born. Liberty was proclaimed and laws were enacted under The Constitution of the United States. Today, that Constitutional liberty is sorely threatened because one aspirant for the office of President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, remains silent while being challlenged, through an increasing number of lawsuits in various states, to confirm that he is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to seek the office of President. He has stone-walled all efforts to authenticate his proof of citizenship. If
any readers of this letter are unaware of this legal crisis it is because the major media outlets make no mention of possible legal restrictions which could bar the Senator from seeking this office. In fact, on Oct.25, I wrote to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in New York about the media silence ( incl.Fox) and, with tongue in cheek, asked if we would only be made aware of the lawsuits after judges had ruled on them.
Ironically, a few days before, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the former Ass't Attorney General of Philadelphia, Pa., Mr.Philip Berg, by declaring that Mr.Berg did not prove that he would suffer harm to himself if Senator Obama was declared eligible to run for President. The next day, Newsday,Long Island,New York's major newspaper, mentioned this case for the first time by simply mentioning the Dismissal of the lawsuit. Mr. Berg is now taking this issue directly and immediately to the U.S.Supreme Court. I wonder if a class-action suit is in the works.
The most compelling issue in this case was the request for a valid copy of Senator Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (not the differing "Cert.of Live Birth"), since claims were made that he was actually born in Mombasa,Kenya. Ominously, the Government of Kenya recently said that they will not release any documents pertaining to the Senator until the U.S. elections are over. Mr.Berg, in his lawsuit, also requested that a "certificate of USA citizenship" be produced, since Senator Obama was believed to have been a citizen of Indonesia for some time, under the name of Barry Soetoro.
Consider-a simple request to produce two valid documents, which Mr.Berg stated in his lawsuit would be sufficient for withdrawing the lawsuit. Now, three months later, the Senator still refuses to provide these documents for examination by Federal or State authorities....or anyone else ! Would an average citizen act in such a manner ? For that matter, should anyone seeking the highest office in the Land act this way ? On the contrary, and, in fact, I know of eight instances where average citizens have now instituted lawsuits to force their respective States to insist that Senator Obama either provide a valid birth certificate or see his name removed from the election ballots of those States.
I would also like to mention an "above average" citizen, Senator John McCain, who has served his Country bravely and faithfully since he was seventeen years of age. His valid citizenship, since he was born in the Canal Zone, has been confirmed by the U.S.Senate. He could, and would immediately produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, if requested. The only time that he couldn't comply with such a request was the five and one-half years he was "tied up" in Vietnam on Government
business. In contrast, Senator Obama could easily obtain any existing valid birth certificate within forty-eight hours from Hawaiian authorities. Fast forward-eight lawsuits and one petition to the Supreme Court later and he still won't answer the three-am phonecall !
WHO IS THIS MAN ?
The more we seek to learn about Senator Obama, the more concerned about him we become. Asking for transparency, we are repaid with more secrecy. Here are some of the records which, it has been reported, he refuses to release:
OccidentalCollege records ColumbiaCollege records
HarvardCollege records Selective Service Registration
Medical records Illinois State Senate records
Cert.copy of Original Birth Certificate Embossed signed paper Cert.of Live Birth
With all this secrecy, he expects us to accept his birth record as legitimate, solely on his word ! I've gone that route before but it was for Someone born in a manger over 2,000 years ago, in a little town called Bethlehem.
ARE MY WRITTEN INTENTIONS WORTHY ?
As I've said in previous letters, I am morally driven, not racially, to engage in this issue. All humanity is entitled to a "redress of grievances." Sadly, however, on the issue of life those in the womb are being excluded from this "right" by many, and a President Obama would swell the casualty list enormously ! He said that, as President, he would allow abortions to be performed throughtout the entire nine months of a pregnancy and would even take this position to the ultimate end: if any child survived an abortion attempt and lived to exit it's mother's womb the Obama Party would allow the child to die, if the mother so wished !
We keep hearing the "antiseptic" phrase "fewer and safer abortions", while closing in on 50,000,000 (that's millions). I have two questions: First, how can permitting more abortions result in fewer abortions. Am I doing the math wrong. Secondly, a "safe" abortion, to be honest, means only one person will exit the hospital alive. Why not re-term it a "half-safe" abortion ? For that matter, drawing from the world of credit cards I would offer an added definition of abortion-IDENTITY THEFT !
To my fellow Catholics, and all others who honestly believe their genuine concerns about financial conditions, war, the environment, etc. equate with abortion I offer a simple reflection for them. Imagine Senator Obama,(who has promised to make abortion the "Law of the Land", from shore to shore), at a rally and being asked by one of his many cheering fans to describe what actually happens to a child during an abortion "procedure". I guarantee that if he dared to answer the request truthfully, the cheers he had been hearing would become tears and sobs would soon echo throughout an empty stadium.
In conclusion, may I point out that, as with my recent letters, I did not speak of issues such as taxes, health insurance,etc., because I was not stepping into the political arena. Senator Obama, however, plunged into the arena of morality and his defenseless targets, the unborn, need our voices before their's are silenced forever.
I am not voting for a political party but for someone who will insure that the unborn's date of birth doesn't immediately become their date of death ! I pray that all those receiving this letter join with me on Nov.4 "pulling" for life-literally.
"Before I formed thee in the womb of thy mother, I knew thee." (Jeremias 1:5)
Mark Steyn exposing the myths of change in Obama's future cabinet, Republicans acting like conservatives, and the existence of Canadian intelligence in this interview with Hugh Hewitt
HH: I begin this hour as I do most Thursdays when we are blessed and thankful with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn, you got much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving?
MS: Yes, I think so. I’m thankful to be blessed to live in one of the greatest nations on the face of the Earth, and the reasons for that blessing, those blessings, are somewhat in dispute between Republican and Democrat voters, but I think we should all be able to agree that we are nonetheless blessed for whatever reason.
HH: I agree. Now I do want to talk about one non-blessing, which is the market sell off, which has now reached 17% since Barack Obama was elected. Democrats hate when people bring this up, but it seems like the market is “pricing in” Barack Obama. Or is that unfair, Mark Steyn?
MS: Well, I think the market is no longer quite sure what it is measuring. The fact is, and let me be bipartisan here, I think both parties have done their best to give the impression in recent weeks that the rules don’t apply. The rules don’t apply to mortgages, the rules may not apply to automakers, the rules no longer apply to all kinds of areas of investment opportunity. And if you have a situation where the rules can change at any moment, then investors don’t want to make long term investments, and are wary of making long terms investments. And so I think that what we’ve seen in recent weeks ever since the big September 15th Lehman Brothers business is the Dow reflecting that fact that both parties don’t seem quite committed to the rules of capitalism.
HH: Now Rush Limbaugh made the argument today, I think it’s a good one, that if Barack Obama were to walk in front of the cameras and say no tax hikes for the next foreseeable future, and I would say for a year to a year and a half, that markets would immediately begin to steady. Do you agree with that assessment?
MS: Yes, I think so. I think he played a winning hand throughout this last year by staying aloof from any crisis of the day. On January 20th, he’s the man who has to have an answer to the crisis of the day. And I think there’s a limit to how much longer he can just do this sort of Hamlet act by looking like a sort of super cool male model version of Hamlet sort of standing thoughtfully on the battlements while everything goes to hell around him. He basically hasn’t taken a position on the auto bailout. He ought to send a clear signal on taxes. The idea of ending the Bush tax cuts in 2009, or increasing taxes, or even not lowering corporate taxes…I make this point again and again as someone who has worked in different countries. It is staggering to me that the corporate taxes of the United States are some of the highest in the Western world. Why do you think business would prefer to set up in other jurisdictions and merely sell in the United States? It’s because the United States is not a good country to operate a business in.
HH: Now Mark Steyn, we also got our first vote of non-confidence from abroad. Zawahiri doesn’t much care for Barack Obama. Do you think this surprised everyone? Obviously, we denounce the slur on Barack Obama by the terrorist in the cave, wherever he is. But obviously, he’s not for meeting without preconditions with Barack Obama.
MS: Well, I’m not you, Hugh. I’m stunned. I’m stunned that Obama’s message of hope and change, and change and hope, and the change of hope, and the hope of change doesn’t seem to be resonating with America’s enemies. What a surprise. Who would have thought it? I would imagine that in the last few days, Barack Obama has seen the same briefings that George W. Bush and other world leaders get when they go to sleep at night and when they wake up every morning. And I would imagine he is fast modifying his view of the world as one where you can just sit down across the table from the bad guys and schmooze them with your charm.
HH: We certainly hope so. Now what you make, are you secretly, as I am, hoping for Hillary Clinton to go to the Department of State?
MS: (laughing) Well, in the sense that America has had to suffer her lo these many years and it’s time for the rest of the world to get a taste of it, if that’s what you mean, then I think I would be in favor of it. In a way, it’s a measure of how the minimal expectations we have on our side of the Obama administration, that Hillary seems like a savvy choice compared to some of these other rumors like John Kerry for Secretary of State. But I must say, what it does reflect, I think, is that there are no Obama people. I mean, he protested when people brought up the thinness of his resume. But it’s a fact that he has nobody to bring to Washington. And like Clinton or Carter, or Bush or Reagan on our side, there’s no group of people who’ve been around him for years for him to fill positions in his cabinet with. I mean, he’s basically having to take the old Clinton circle that we thought he’d driven a stake through back in the Spring.
HH: Do we think, how long do you think it will be, Mark Steyn, until we hear about the Emanuel presidency?
MS: (laughing) well, Rahm Emanuel is an interesting figure. He’s in a job where he…in theory, you ought to be leaking and briefing on behalf of his president. So far, from what I can discern from his friends in the mainstream media, he seems to be leaking and briefing on behalf of himself. Obama may need to get a chief of staff to serve as his chief of staff, because Rahm Emanuel seems to be Rahm Emanuel’s chief of staff.
HH: Let’s turn abroad since our politics is so dreary on this Thanksgiving week to Great Britain, where David Cameron, leader of the Tories, actually came out today, or this week, and said I’m not going to spend as much money as Labour. And I thought to myself, this is news?
MS: Unfortunately, it is news, because in many parts of the Western world, including, I regret to say, Washington, the so-called conservative party has in recent years contented itself with trying to tell the voters that it can in effect operate the liberal state slightly more efficiently than the liberal party can. And this isn’t…for me, personally, and I think for most principled conservatives, this isn’t enough. We want a conservative party that is not just prepared to slow the growth of the state, but to reverse the growth of the state. And the idea that David Cameron, whom David Brooks in the New York Times was saying that Republicans ought to look to as a model of modern conservative leadership in the 21st Century, the fact that this is regarded as red meat from David Cameron is par for the course, and not very inspiring for us poor, beleaguered chaps on this side of the ocean.
H: Now you bring up David Brooks, and that reminds me that Kathleen Parker, another one of the not so conservative conservatives, took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post to denounce Evangelicals this week. How long is the conservative meltdown, crack up, whatever you want to call it, going to go on?
MS: Well look, Kathleen, I like Kathleen. Kathleen did me a huge favor, by the way. She gave her copy of America Alone to President Bush who read it in a couple of days and sent me a very nice letter about it. And so I’m always grateful to Kathleen for that. But I think this is ridiculous. You know, Reagan established the principle. There are three legs to a successful Republican election. There are social conservatives, there are fiscal conservatives, and there are national security conservatives. And if you chop off one of those legs, the whole things falls down. And the problem at that last election was that all three of those legs became loosened and weakened, and the idea that we can get by without any of them at the moment, I think doesn’t bear scrutiny. But certainly, if Evangelicals don’t show up to the polls, Republicans lose, and Kathleen should bear that in mind.
HH: Now last subject, let’s turn to your slight of the Canadian Intelligence Services. I am sure that both of them are upset with your disparaging of their professionalism vis-Ã -vis your review of the new Bond movie.
MS: Yes, the new Bond film, Quantum of Solace, has this amazing scene towards the end where Bond runs into this woman in a particular circumstance in Russia, in deep cover in Russia, and reveals her to be a woman from Canadian intelligence. Well you know, I would like it if Canada had maple sugar traps, and trapping and ensnaring Russian and Chinese and North Korean and Iranian agents. But the fact is that Canadian intelligence is one of the few intelligence agencies in the Western world that doesn’t actually have agents out in the field doing spying. And I mean, my model is MI6. I prefer the James Bond model to those deadbeats at the CIA in Langley who sit around reading e-mail all day long. I like, I think serious nations have agents out in the field. I wish the United States had more, and I wish Canada had any.
HH: 30 seconds, Mark Steyn. Thumbs up or down on the new Bond flick?
MS: I thought it was, I thought it was really a bit of a disappointment after Casino Royale. The so-called reinvention with Daniel Craig seems to be running out of puff in this second film.
With Time magazine comparing Obama to Jesus, I guess we should be relieved that, this week, liberals are only comparing him to Abraham Lincoln.
The one thing every liberal on TV seems to know about Lincoln is that he put rivals in his cabinet, as subtly indicated in the title to historian and plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin's book: "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Like Lincoln, Goodwin is always open to contributions from her rivals, although Lincoln was better at crediting their words.
And hasn't Obama talked to former rival Hillary about becoming his secretary of state? Hasn't he had a sit-down with Sen. John McCain? Did I imagine this, or is he even now brokering peace talks between Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
Ergo: Obama is a genius.
Indeed, historians have just named Obama the best president-elect ever.
I don't recall the media swooning when President George W. Bush reached out to rivals, such as Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who was asked to co-write Bush's education bill. In fact, the way I remember it, Bush is liberals' most hated president ever (only because they can't remember George Washington or they'd hate him, too).
And yet no modern president has ever done more to bridge partisan divides and show respect to his opponents than George W. Bush. I do not say this with admiration; it is simply a fact.
Throughout the year and again in his convention speech during the 2000 presidential campaign, Gov. Bush bragged that he had "no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
(As a side note: Bush would never have been elected president if not for the "bitter arguments of the last few years," in which Republicans exposed and impeached Bill Clinton, which then killed Al Gore's presidential ambitions. So you're welcome.)
But the point is: Bush was massively chummy with his enemies -- Democrats, communists and the Congressional Black Caucus. So chummy that even they began to wonder if he was a little daft.
In his first few weeks in office, Bush met with more than 150 members of Congress, half of them Democrats -- including five events with America's leading liberal menace, Sen. Teddy Kennedy.
Bush's very first social event at the White House was movie night with the Kennedy family to watch "Thirteen Days," a falsely heroic portrayal of JFK's disastrous handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This suggests to me that Obama's first social move as president will have to be to invite Lindsey Graham over to a screening of "Larry the Cable Guy Saves Christmas."
Naturally, Bush also had primary rival John McCain and his wife, Cindy, over to dinner at the White House.
Bush was the first president in memory to attend the congressional retreats of the opposing party. After two weeks in office, a Wall Street Journal column noted that Bush's charm offensive was "disorienting the local Hatfields and McCoys." (Again: You're welcome.)
Bush even made a special point to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus upon taking office, which -- given their feelings toward Bush -- would be the equivalent of Obama holding a special meet-and-greet session with the upper management of the Ku Klux Klan.
Bush invited the Democratic black mayor of the District of Columbia to the White House, attended a majority black District church service and appointed the first black secretary of state.
And that was all before Feb. 1, 2001. (By the end of his presidency, he would have appointed the first two black secretaries of state.)
Though it was small potatoes after all that palling around with Teddy Kennedy, this is the same George W. Bush who had Muslim "spiritual leaders" to the White House a week after 9/11.
Bush also famously said of then-Russian president, former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, that he looked him in the eye and "was able to get a sense of his soul."
(This made Bush's critics almost as apoplectic as if he had said, "I looked into Putin's eyes and, frankly, I just don't trust the guy." No matter what Bush did, liberals were incensed.)
As president, Bush scuttled the playing of "Hail to the Chief" in his honor and repeatedly reminded his staff to act humbly.
This is as opposed to Obama, who I believe is the first president-elect in history to have his own "Office of the President-elect" seal commissioned.
Like I always say, even if you don't like the current president-elect, you should still have some respect for the office of the presidency-elect.
Genius, Thy Name Is Obama by Ann Coulter HUMAN EVENTS 20 November 2008
Cardinal George said after the last meeting of the U.S. Bishops that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense and the church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. Formal cooperation, the Cardinal further explained could involve you even though you are not actually assisting in the performance of the act of aborting a child and you would be culpable. With regard to any Catholic legislator voting for FOCA the Cardinal said, "We would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We’ve never done that.”
They have had the opportunity to do that. I have previously joined in canonical petitions for excommunication against several long time Catholic pro-abortion public officials. Those petitions were never given a hearing by the Cardinals and Bishops of those pro-abortion Catholic legislators and public officials.
Article 22 of the Declaration on Procured Abortion by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974, states: " It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application."
Isn’t it clear from Art. 22 that it is formal cooperation with intrinsic evil if a Catholic legislator publicly supports and votes for any type of legal killing of unborn humans, except to prevent a worse abortion law, as clarified in Art. 73 of Evangelium Vitae. All the Bishops in Uruguay said it is formal cooperation if a Catholic legislator voted to legalize abortion in their country.
The Supreme Court decision to legalize murder of unborn children could be overturned by the Congress in several ways, but many of the Catholic legislators have voted to uphold the murder decision of the court. Catholic legislators have been informed of the Catholic teaching ever since Roe v. Wade was decided, so they cannot plead ignorance for their denial of basic Catholic doctrine, or their obstinate disobedience to the laws of God and the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XVI told journalists on his trip to South America that the Bishops in Mexico City were correct in warning legislators they would be excommunicated and denied the Eucharist if they voted to legalize abortion. The Pope did not state any other conditions necessary for excommunication, other than a vote to legalize murder.
With regard to the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT, why does Cardinal George or any Bishop need to wait and see what the final legislation will be? The provisions of the Act are already known and are unlikely to be changed on the final vote. There is a web site called Canon915.org which lists every Catholic U.S. Congressman and Senator and their life issues voting record. Why have the bishops waited 36 years to act, while the South American Bishops act proactively by notifying Catholic legislators in their countries that the Canon law provisions for excommunication and denial of Holy Communion will be applied if the Catholics legislators vote for legalized abortion?
The voting polls after the November 4th elections show that most Catholic voters did not make abortion their primary concern in deciding how to vote. Only 29% said they would vote against a candidate because of the candidate’s abortion views; and 53% said a good Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Less than a third of Catholic voters appear to vote solely on abortion attitudes.
The fact is that not even one of the most outspoken Catholic legislators who promotes and votes for legal killing of unborn children has been excommunicated, and very few Bishops deny Communion to Catholic legislators who remain obstinately in support of and vote for legal abortion. This failure of the U.S. Bishops to be unified in protecting the Catholic faith and Catholic faithful must certainly be a major cause in the tragic failure of Catholic voters to vote according to a well formed conscience, because they could not form a correct Catholic conscience from the Bishops failure to identify pro-abortion Catholic politicians by excommunication or even by denial of Communion to them.
I believe that if the Bishops had complied with the Canons that provide for excommunication and denial of Holy Communion when legalized abortion came through the courts we would not have this crisis now. But it is not too late, so I pray the Bishops will have courage to try and save the eternal lives of the Catholic legislators and judges who vote and rule to kill innocent humans, and correct the scandal that Catholic judges, legislators and bishops have given and caused so many Catholics to be confused in moral judgment and in their faith.
It is impossible to speak of a "Catholic culture" in America any longer. A whole segment of the populace who call themselves "Catholics" do not feel bound by any standard of Catholic orthodoxy or sanity. In fact, it is impossible to even speak of a Catholic culture in most parishes! At a recent "ministry faire" of a large Catholic parish in south Florida, the Respect Life ministry of the parish displayed its pro-life materials next to the table of the "social justice" committee of the same parish. Any commonality between the two ministries was simply in the space they shared. Their world views could not have been further apart, but they both call themselves Catholic.
In fact, the "social justice" people were positively aglow about the election of their new messiah, Barack Obama. Several of them were speaking of their plans to attend the Inauguration and were utterly unaware that there would be 100,000 people marching on the nation's Capitol two days later for the right to life of unborn Americans which they had just voted into irrelevancy by electing Obama to the highest office of the land. One of them even expressed shock at the provisions of the upcoming Freedom of Choice Act until he was confronted with the nasty little fact that his messiah had been a sponsor of that pernicious bill in the last Congress. True to form, he steadfastly refused to allow that truth to have any effect on his euphoria. His mind was made up, and he would not let himself be confused by facts. Needless to say, the orthodox, practicing, believing Catholic pro-lifers will not be attending the Inauguration.
How can these two groups sit side-by-side in the same pews and display their ministries in the same space at the same Catholic parish? Simply because this contradiction has been tolerated for years by those in charge of our Church. In this election season neither of these two groups received any guidance about voting according to Catholic principles because, as per usual, there was silence from the pulpit on the issue. The absolute failure of our church leaders to define for us what membership in the Church means - and then to enforce it - has led to the degradation of Catholic culture and the loss of meaning for things that are sacred. When Christ and Belial are considered equal partners in the sanctuary, then nothing in the sanctuary means anything any more and no meaningful standard exists to distinguish a true Catholic from a false Catholic.
The degradation of Catholic culture is largely, but not exclusively, the fault of the clergy. For four decades in the Catholic Church in America we have seen:
1. Liturgical abuses run rampant, aided and abetted by those in charge 2. Two or three generations of Catholics left un-catechized or taught with flimsy, Protestantized fluff passed off as Catholic education 3. Sexual abuse by clergy excused and unaddressed by the hierarchy 4. A blind eye turned to high profile dissent and political class heretics 5. Wholesale attacks on sacred teachings that receive virtually no response from our pastors (and if it weren't for Catholic Answers, EWTN and the Catholic League we would have no defense whatsoever) 6. The succumbing of our Catholic institutions of higher education to the ravages of political correctness, and the list goes on.
In the face of all this, should we be surprised that 54% of "Catholics" voted for Barack? Hardly.
The battle for Catholic culture begins with us, and there is no time like the present to don the armor of spiritual warfare. We either believe and practice what the Church teaches or we live as part of the shadow church, falsely trading on the Name Catholic for its benefits without at the same time shouldering the crosses that this entails.
There is, however, great hope for the future because the battle has already been engaged: new Catholic colleges are springing up to replace the old decrepit houses of heresy, new religious orders with abundant vocations and orthodoxy have arisen, home schooling families and strong lay movements are abundant now. Only when we take back our beloved Church from the false Catholics and clerics will our Church be able to stand up and rebuke the storm winds of paganism that are building faster than we care to admit. This project is not without its price, however. The cost of being a true believer will undoubtedly be much higher than ever before in our lifetime. Starting now and into the next generation we as Catholics will have to show the world not only what we believe but that we are willing to lay down our lives for it as a witness to the truth.
Election Part II - Catholic Culture and the Election of Barack Obama by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International www.hli.org Spirit & Life® "The words I spoke to you are spirit and life." (Jn 6:63) Human Life International e-Newsletter Volume 03, Number 42 | Friday, November 21, 2008
We’ve heard it again and again: The financial crisis was caused by the Bush administration's reckless plunge into deregulation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, blames the mess on “the Bush administration's eight long years of failed deregulation policies.” Billionaire investor George Soros declares that “excessive deregulation is at the root of the current crisis.” Nouriel Roubini, the widely-quoted New York University economist, pins it on “these Bush hypocrites, who spewed for years the glory of unfettered Wild West laissez-faire jungle capitalism.” A New York Times editorial pronounces the American financial system “the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies.”
President Jimmy Carter attributes it to the “atrocious economic policies of the Bush administration,” particularly “deregulation and . . . a withdrawal of supervision of Wall Street.”
That's also Barack Obama's view. “The biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system,” Obama said last month. He called the present troubles “a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years . . . that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.”
Deregulators run amok undoubtedly make a flamboyant culprit. But do they exist? Should we really be taking seriously the claim that the past eight years have been characterized by letting “the market run wild”?
Granted, there has been significant recent legislation easing financial restrictions. Most often mentioned is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which, as The New York Times described it on Monday, “removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes.” Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush's fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, after being passed by lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress.
President Bill Clinton after signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. The law partially deregulated
the securities industry. (Photo: Justin Lane/The New York Times)
Gramm-Leach-Bliley's lead sponsors were Republicans, but the 34 Democratic senators who voted for the bill surely weren't scheming to “let the market run wild.” Ditto the 151 Democrats -- among them future Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who voted for the measure in the House. Then-Treasury Secretary (and current Obama adviser) Larry Summers didn't denounce the bill as “laissez-faire jungle capitalism” -- he praised it for “promoting financial innovation, lower capital costs, and greater international competitiveness.” Clinton himself defends the law to this day.
Now, this is not to say that Bush hasn't also been responsible for legislation having a decided impact on the country's regulatory climate. On July 31, 2002, declaring that free markets must not be “a financial free-for-all guided only by greed,” he signed the Sarbanes-Oxley law, a sweeping overhaul of corporate fraud, securities, and accounting laws. Among its many tough provisions, the law created a new regulatory agency to oversee public accounting firms and auditors, and imposed an array of new requirements for financial reporting and corporate audits. Whatever else might be said about Sarbanes-Oxley, it was no invitation to an uninhibited capitalist bacchanal.
Like the alligators lurking in New York City sewers, Bush's massive regulatory rollback is mostly urban legend. Far from throwing out the rulebook, the administration has expanded it: Since Bush became president, the Federal Register -- the government's annual compendium of proposed and finalized regulations -- has run to more than 74,000 pages every year but one. During the Clinton years, by contrast, the Federal Register reached that length just once.
Similarly, the administration has broken every previous record for regulatory agency spending. According to researchers at Washington University and George Mason University, appropriations for federal regulatory functions have soared during the Bush years. Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget has grown from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 -- a 70 percent increase. “In constant dollars,” writes James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal, “the Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and, yes, Lyndon Johnson.” Staffing has skyrocketed, too. Regulatory agencies employed 175,000 people in 2000. They employ nearly 264,000 today. (Some of that reflects the Transportation Security Administration's takeover of airport security screening in 2003.)
Amid the stress and storm of the financial crisis, “deregulation” makes a convenient villain. But the facts tell a different story: The nation's regulatory burden has grown heavier, not lighter, since Bush entered the White House. Too little government wasn’t what made the economy sick. Too much government isn't going to make it better.
******************** Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead. The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something. I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts. Scroll down for more It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be. Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find. If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over. He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to. Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home). I am not mak ing this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff. And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship. Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know th at one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges. They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law. If Mr. Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr. Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation. If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them. And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue. I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is i n many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan. As I walked, I crossed another of Washington's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy. They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world. Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique. These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts. They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth by Peter Hitchens (brother of oft-seen Christopher Hitchens) The Daily Mail [a British newspaper] 08 November 2008
******************* Obama's Choice for the Cabinet Position of Attorney General Was Key Figure in Clinton Terrorist Clemency Controversy
Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's pick for attorney general. (AP photo)
Eric Holder, the long-time Washington lawyer chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be the next attorney general, was a central figure in the controversy surrounding the clemency petitions of 16 convicted terrorists during the Clinton administration.
Holder, who was deputy attorney general from 1997 until 2001, oversaw all of the requests for clemency filed during those years, including requests from former domestic terrorists, drug traffickers and a number of disgraced politicians.
Most notable among the petitions for clemency granted during Holder’s tenure is the request from 16 members of a Puerto Rican Marxist terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by its Spanish acronym FALN, which engaged in a robbery and terror campaign in both the U.S. and Puerto Rico during the 1970s and 1980s.
The clemency petition, which was supported by Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-N.Y.), Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), became the subject of fiery controversy after it was revealed that none of the convicted terrorists had renounced violence and that their victims had not been consulted during the clemency process.
The clemency petition was opposed by the FBI, the U.S. attorneys who had prosecuted the terrorists, and even the Justice Department’s own Office of Pardon Attorney – an office that was established to deal with the Clinton administration's overwhelming number of pardon requests.
As deputy attorney general, Holder was responsible for overseeing the investigations of the individuals filing for clemency in order to determine whether or not their requests should be granted by then President Bill Clinton, who possesses the constitutional authority to grant pardons.
A report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform on Dec. 12, 1999 states that senior Justice Department officials met with those who were asking for clemency for the terrorists, but the victims of the FALN were denied meetings.
“Victims were unable to get meetings with the White House or Department of Justice,” the report said. “Some had tried to schedule meetings; they were simply rebuffed. Activists seeking clemency did get such meetings.”
In fact, the report found that Holder met with the New York congressmen about the clemency petitions, once in November of 1997 and again in April of 1998.
Holder also played a central role in drafting the clemency report that was delivered to President Clinton – one that gave no clear recommendation as to whether he should or should not grant clemency to the separatists; a position that ran against Justice’s earlier recommendations against clemency as late as March 1999.
The congressional report criticized this ambiguous position, saying its reversal looked like the Justice Department was seeking to find a way to legitimize a legally suspect decision.
“By refraining from giving a clear recommendation, it is almost as if the Justice Department is doing the best that it can to bolster a decision that had already been made,” the report said.
The report went on to criticize Justice for apparently bending its own rules regarding clemency due to the politically charged nature of the requests.
“It appears that the Justice Department has bent and even changed its rules to accommodate this politically charged clemency,” the report found.
Holder, meanwhile, was also in charge when Clinton, on his last day in office, pardoned commodities trader Marc Rich who had left the United States in order to avoid prosecution for alleged tax evasion and violating the trade embargo with Iran. Rich's ex-wife Denise had visited the White House over a dozen times during Clinton's time in office, and contributed an estimated $450,000 to his library foundation, $1.1 million to the Democratic Party and more than $100,000 to Hillary Clinton's first bid for the Senate.
********************** 'IGNORANT' IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE WOEFULLY UNINFORMED ABOUT THE BURNING ISSUES IN THE CAMPAIGN
********************** "Media Malpractice, How Obama Got Elected,"
On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted. The purpose of the interviews was to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign.
These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.
Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago (Photo from Archdiocese of Chicago Web site)
Catholic members of Congress who vote for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) could face “automatic excommunication” if the act is determined to be “formal cooperation” in the evil of abortion.
When asked last week whether a Catholic politician voting for the FOCA – which would impose nationwide abortion on demand and government funding of abortion – would incur automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said the question would need to be discussed once the actual language of the bill was known.
George is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
In order to be considered in the next Congress, which convenes in January, the Freedom of Choice Act needs to be reintroduced. In the current Congress, it has been sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
At a press conference at the fall meeting of the USCCB held in Baltimore last week, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal George if the language in the Catholic Catechism that says “formal cooperation” in abortion incurs the penalty of excommunication would apply to a Catholic member of Congress voting for FOCA.
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense and the church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life,” CNSNews.com asked.
“If openly Catholic politicians vote for this Freedom of Choice Act, which would pretty much allow unfettered access to abortion in the United States, would it be an automatic grounds for excommunication? But even if it’s not automatic … could you just explain the process of the excommunication?” CNSNews.com added.
“The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation, and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you would see the terms of the act itself,” responded George.
“Could you expand on that, Cardinal,” a reporter asked.
“The categories in moral theology about cooperating in evil, which make you complicit in the evil even though you don’t do it yourself, are material cooperation, which is usually remote and therefore doesn’t involve you in the moral action except in a very auxiliary and minor way, and formal cooperation, which would involve you even though you are not doing it, in the way that makes you culpable,” said George.
“So we would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We’ve never done that,” he added.
President-elect Barack Obama promised in his campaign to sign FOCA. As introduced in the current Congress, FOCA denies all federal, state and local governments the power to interfere with a woman’s “choice” to abort a baby, and prohibits “discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
On behalf of all the American Catholic bishops, Cardinal George put out a stern statement last Thursday warning the incoming Obama administration not to push forward with FOCA.
“A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973,” said George on behalf of the bishops.
“This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself,” he said.
“In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any ‘interference’ in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” said George.
“FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.
“Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated,” said George.
“The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life,” he said.
“FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children,” George continued.
“It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil. On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”
Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priests for Life told CNSNews.com: “Any legislator who would vote for such an extreme piece of pro-abortion legislation [FOCA], and any executive who would sign it or judge who would uphold it, or even a citizen who would lobby in any way in favor of it, would be committing a serious sin, objectively speaking. It is cooperation with evil in a totally unjustified way.”
Pavone said that the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law lays out multiple conditions which must be met before an automatic excommunication occurs. “This really becomes a legal question that would require analyzing those conditions in an actual situation, and it is a step removed from the more clear-cut case of a person actually performing or undergoing the procedure [of abortion],” he said.
Dr. Mark Miravalle, a theology professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, said of a Catholic politician voting for FOCA, “I think you would have to conclude that it would be a formal act, a formal cooperation [in the act of abortion].”
The purpose of FOCA, he continued, “is to ensure the right of a woman to have an abortion.”
One theoretical case where it would not be formal cooperation, but material, he said, was if the politician was pro-life at heart but did not favor legislation as the way to overturn abortion. Miravalle said, however, that such a case would be an "extremely rare and almost entirely theoretical impossibility, given the gravity of the legislation."
Noting that FOCA involves not only greater access to abortion, but also government funding of abortion, Miravalle said “to vote for that [FOCA], means you’re voting for an intention of a woman to have an abortion and to fund that.” If a politician intends to fund abortions, which is what FOCA would do, it would be considered formal cooperation with abortion, he said.
When asked what the church would do about a Catholic politician voting for FOCA, Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco said the bishops need to challenge themselves and the lay faithful in their respective dioceses to fight FOCA.
“So we really need to make our case,” he said, “and we need to do it early and often, with the members of Congress as well as with the new administration.”
In reply to the question of individual Catholic politicians voting for FOCA, he referred to a 2004 statement by the U.S. Bishops. “It says that we should not give a platform to people who do this, we should not give awards, we should not feature them,” he said.
“But with regard to Holy Communion we all teach the same thing, about it being a cooperation in evil to vote in favor of pro-choice legislation, but it is left up to the pastoral sensitivity and responsibility of the individual bishop to interact with those officeholders in his own diocese.”
“The approach always entails saying that this is cooperation in what is evil,” Niederauer concluded.
Niederauer’s archdiocese includes the congressional district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is Catholic.
When asked about a pro-abortion Catholic politician seeking to receive Holy Communion, Dr. Mark Miravalle said, “Canonically, based on scandal, and based on proper protection of the Eucharist, no pro-abortion, pro-choice Catholic politician should be admitted to receive Holy Communion.”
Catholics Who Vote for Freedom of Choice Act Could Face Automatic Excommunication Wednesday, November 19, 2008 By Matt Hadro (CNSNews.com)
