Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Cooch Nails Obama’s Notre Dame Visit

By Greg L | 17 May 2009 | National Politics | 41 Comments

Ken Cuccinelli, writing in this week’s edition of the “Cuccinelli Compass” says it best when commenting on Barack Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame.  Although I’m not a Catholic, I completely understand the angst this abandonment of principle must pose to those of the Catholic faith, and sympathize with those concerned that the leaders who represent their faith maybe embarking on a dangerous path by highlighting the opinions of those who battle against the core principles they say they stand for.  This is a difficult time for them, and I pray they find a way to resolve the troubling questions they are challenged with.

Ken writes:

I am appalled that Notre Dame has today bestowed on President Obama an honorary degree. I have not spoken on the subject until now in the hopes that they would right their course. I am not a Notre Dame alum, nor are any of my family, however, as someone proud of his Irish heritage and a big football fan, I have always been a Notre Dame fan. That ended today.

I took the time to read the university’s mission statement. What a bunch of goobldy-guk. Exactly what I’d expect from an entity that so freely and willingly abandons the basic precepts of its own faith in order to be politically correct.

That led me to look at an authentically Catholic university’s mission statement from right here in Virginia - Christendom College. I know most readers of The Compass are not Catholic, but you don’t need to be a Catholic to see how Notre Dame makes no pretense about forming its students in faith, particularly compared to Virginia’s own Christendom College.

Notre Dame Mission Statement:

“The University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice, and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice.”

Notice any particular words missing? Oh, say “Catholic” or “Christian”? This mission sounds great for a charity, but not so much for an allegedly ‘Catholic’ university. Sad.

Christendom College Mission Statement:

“Christendom College is a Catholic coeducational college institutionally committed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

The College provides a Catholic liberal arts education, including an integrated core curriculum grounded in natural and revealed truth, the purpose of which at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is to form the whole person for a life spent in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. Intrinsic to such an education is the formation of moral character and the fostering of the spiritual life. This education prepares students for their role as faithful, informed, and articulate members of Christ’s Church and society.

The particular mission of Christendom College, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, is ‘to restore all things in Christ,’ by forming men and women to contribute to the Christian renovation of the temporal order. This mission gives Christendom College its name.”

Among the protesters arrested at Notre Dame today was Norma McCorvey - she was “Roe” in Roe v. Wade, but in 1998 she became a Catholic and she is now an activist pro-lifer. Also, by the way, she has endorsed me in this race in light of my strong pro-life record in the Senate.

Again, today is a sad day at Notre Dame. I hope any of you that, like me, who have been fans of Notre Dame for so many years, will abandon it as it has abandoned faith. It’s the least we can do.
Catholics will have to decide for themselves what they stand for, but they clearly cannot stand for opposing doctrinal viewpoints at the same time and remain a unified church.  Let’s hope the discussion that follows this brings them clarity and unity.  This issue must be addressed, lest the second version of a Martin Luther find a new set of theses to nail to the gate to whatever will be the modern proxy for the gate to Wittenburg’s church.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

41 Comments

  1. I'm just saying... said on 18 May 2009 at 5:11 am:
    Flag comment

    For those who really follow the Catholic Church, you have noticed that the Pope and the Vatican had decided that Obama is a President they can work with. To get a little more specific, if you are Catholic, you believe in the infallibility of the Pope. So, why is protesting Obama’s visit to ND OK again? The 29,000 ND students who cheered Obama probably better represent how American Catholics think these days.

    He understands that we must talk before we can come together. We need to agree to disagree to respect those who don’t share our faith. This is a religious issue and we are a Country with multiple faith traditions. Suggesting one should dominate is the Taliban’s strategy… I’m not that interested in following their lead.

  2. NoVA Scout said on 18 May 2009 at 5:22 am:
    Flag comment

    My guess is that Obama was invited because he is President of the United States of America, not because of his views on any particular issue, including abortion. Not surprisingly, a lot of universities regard the presence of the President (whoever it is at the time) at graduation as a good thing (I know that was certainly the case at my university). I doubt that any great principle was at risk.

    As for the call to abandon ND as fans, well, I think the better reason is that the team sucks. This year is supposed to be better, but those of you who are still hanging in with them ought to bail out if CW doesn’t bring them around this season, regardless of your views on abortion.

  3. Jay said on 18 May 2009 at 6:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Notre Dame played this one perfectly: pick a speaker for PR value to help boost attention and future applicants.

    If pro-life goobers don’t want to attend ND they can apply to William and Mary (oops, I mean Bob Jones pee aytch dee). . .ND didn’t give a rat’s ass about the protesters because they already know they exist in a pro-choice country.

    . . .full of sound and fury. . .signifying nothing. . .

    If waving signs at a college graduation speech is the contemporary lightning-rod of the save-da-babies campaign these are indeed strong days for good ol’ choice advocates.

    People mad at ND? Go somewhere else. There are five students in line for each slot refused over this issue.

  4. Jeff said on 18 May 2009 at 7:31 am:
    Flag comment

    RE: I’m just saying…

    A couple of things . . . First, the Doctrine of Infallibility does not cover every action of the Pope. Only when teaching on matters of Faith and Morals, and in the strict sense of “ex cathedra” is when the Pope is an infallible teacher. The Pope can be a complete letch (and there have been a few) but still be infallible as a teacher of Faith and Morals.

    Secondly, there’s a difference between working with President Obama on matters of social justice (as the Vatican is doing) and bestowing honors on him and thereby giving his viewpoints credence (as Notre Dame is doing).

  5. Patty said on 18 May 2009 at 8:30 am:
    Flag comment

    God’s Word:

    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” 2Timothy 4:3-4

  6. Tyler VA said on 18 May 2009 at 8:31 am:
    Flag comment

    I think most people are missing the point. It’s not that Obama was invited to talk to ND that is causing the controversy (at least among most Catholics who have a problem with it). Dialogue is fine. Commencement speeches are fine. The controversy stems from them honoring him with an honorary doctorate. The church’s position on giving awards and honors to ardently pro-choice individuals is clearly stated, and this is a gross violation of that.

    The comments by NoVa Scout, and more particularly, I’m just saying…were missing the point. Dialogue or presence is not the issue. Honoring him with an award is the issue. It shouldn’t be done.

  7. Bill Kilgore said on 18 May 2009 at 9:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Does granting Obama a degree count toward Notre Dame’s affirmative action quota?

  8. James said on 18 May 2009 at 9:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Is Cuccinelli running for Pope?

  9. BothPartiesColludeAgainstYou said on 18 May 2009 at 9:54 am:
    Flag comment

    A. The idea that Catholics are protesting this, when their church protected (and, worldwide, still protects) child molesters from the law, and transfers them parish-to-parish, and uses church money by the millions to settle lawsuits regarding these molestations, is beyond absurdity.

    B. If the Church wants people to take their position on abortion seriously, they need to rethink their position on birth control.

    C. Most people don’t give two squats about this (Obama/Notre Dame). Ken C. and anyone else can go light a candle or pray on a rug or whatever. Who cares. Crap like this is what is spinning the GOP further and further from swing voters. Obama’s reelection in 2012 is becoming a guaranteed phenomenon. Which is probably better for America than letting the GOP run rampant again.

  10. BothPartiesColludeAgainstYou said on 18 May 2009 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Note to rabid Republicans :

    Most Americans noted how you gave a free pass to an idiot President, who wreaked havok on America in numerous ways. Trailing the new President around and attacking his every move, while some of your spokespeople publicly “hope he fails”, makes you look goofy.

  11. NoVA Scout said on 18 May 2009 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Tyler: I think I hit, with some precision, the point that Greg and SenKen were making. Your point is a valid one, but it was the post to which I was reacting.

    Much more seriously, going back to Cuccinelli’s observations (who cares what a state senator from Virginia thinks about this), I’ll betcha it will be a long time before Christendom College can stay on the field with Notre Dame, no matter how bad the ND team is.

  12. interesting said on 18 May 2009 at 10:20 am:
    Flag comment

    This situation has brought (again) these issues to a place of prominence.

    In fact, the newest survey shows (for the first time in years) that a majority of Americans consider themselves to be “pro life”.

    God works in mysterious ways.

  13. interesting said on 18 May 2009 at 10:43 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA,

    Christendom College has no football team so I imagine you are correct in stating that the could not “stay on the field with (ND)”

    However as for the “field” of morality and integrity, one might suggest that ND is not even in the same league.

  14. Patsy Jones said on 18 May 2009 at 11:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Christendom College is a small school, no doubt, but through its mission produces moral citizens who will make great contributions to our future.

    My daughter attended Christendom recently as a high school junior in her search for the right college. During the visit, she attended a class. She came out and said “Mom, this is what I’ve been missing my whole life!” Christ was in the classroom, not just as part of a lecture, but his presence was welcome there. Her search was over, Christendom IS her college.

    As a parent, I know I will be sending my child to a college that will love and protect her as it teaches her to learn and grow.

    Thank God, Christ is in Christendom!

  15. annon said on 18 May 2009 at 11:35 am:
    Flag comment

    These quotes sum it up.

    “there’s a difference between working with President Obama on matters of social justice (as the Vatican is doing) and bestowing honors on him and thereby giving his viewpoints credence (as Notre Dame is doing).”

    “The church’s position on giving awards and honors to ardently pro-choice individuals is clearly stated, and this is a gross violation of that.”

    God’s Word:

    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” 2Timothy 4:3-4

  16. Red, White and Blue said on 18 May 2009 at 3:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Catholics are split just like the country. We don’t have dialogue, we have the courts. Obama was invited as the President, not for his position on any particular issue. Those opposed to his visit are exercising their First Amendment rights, just like the pro-abortion folks. Every year the President is invited to speak “at the Wall’ Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial, Clinton took them up on it and he spoke. I am adamantly against Obama’s socialist plans and his re-working of the Constitution. I was against Bill Clinton speaking at “the Wall”, and I was there, just about 8 rows back, dead center. I was upset but it is an jesture to each President. I politely listened to Billie but my resentment of and for his actions during that war did not change but we honor the position, even if we disagree.

    As for the catholics, I am appalled at how many claim to be faithful yet support those who kill babies. We have “humane” efforts to save whales, dogs, bears, birds, fish, etc.etc. We have efforts to eliminate the death penalty no matter how bad the person is. We release rapist and child molesters back onto the streets. We want to eliminate all “torture” no matter how many lives it saves and how little it really is “torture”. The trees and forest must be saved yet, we cannot save half of the women killed by abortion, no matter the tri-mester or if even a live birth during the abortion. A court recently decided this.

    Now tell me, where is the logic? How can women “uphold” women’s rights when half of the babies “aborted”, are women? It is easy for us, the living, to make such demands, edicts and justifications and somehow “moralize” abortion yet strive so hard, at all cost, to “save” so many other things on the planet, even our enemies.

    Obama, as the President, had every right to be at Notre Dame. He was invited. The cheers and clapping only affirm what we believe in and who we are. What do we believe in and who are we really and who are the acceptors of death? If any of you witnessed waterboarding, then an abortion on an 7th or 8th month baby, may be that question would be answered. May be if we got our heads out of the sand and realize that we make and choose our own destiny……………….naw, I think I am wasting my breath. I can feel the hate and the loathing.

    Thank you Mom for not aborting me. My kids thanked me as well. Millions will never thank anyone on this planet.

  17. legal2 said on 18 May 2009 at 5:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wonder why ND supports BO? Here’s an analysis of their Board of Trustees. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48163&print=on

  18. Arlington Minority said on 18 May 2009 at 5:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Speaking as a Notre Dame alum, class of 1959, I agree wholeheatedly with Cooch, and will deliberately miss my 50th reunion next month, because of the University’s drift into that murky liberal swamp wjocj leads to complete abandonment of the Faith. The following article accurately describes this.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/how_notre_dame_drifted_away_fr.html

  19. Groveton said on 18 May 2009 at 5:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Notre Dame is as much managed bythe Catholic church as UVA is managed by the General Assembly. Both pretend to support a constituent base that they simply don’t support. The Catholic Church should sever its ties to Notre Dame and let that university move forward as the bastion of human secularism it has become. The Commonwealth of Virginia should sell it’s ownership interest in UVA (perhaps to the bulging UVA endowment fund) and let that university become the international school of applied socialism.

  20. michael said on 18 May 2009 at 8:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Most of the time I support what this blog has to say about current problems in our nation, but I have to take exception this time to the focus of Ken’s comments…

    Time and again I have warned the nation needs to pay attention to “factions” as they can and will destroy Democracy, which is the right of the people to run their own government. This was a very heated debate in the founding discussions of the creation of the US constitution, why church and state were seperated, because “church” is an institution that will not let “individuals” make their own choices. Church, specifically the “catholic” church throughout history used “levitican LAW” as a way to control individual freedom and individual choice”.

    I find it interesting that the “Torah” whose origins were in central Turkey and northern IRAQ (summerian, and babylonian regions, inhabited by “abraham”), is the first five books of the Bible AND the Kuran, which contains levitican law, which is ALSO the source of the abortion debate, and is ALSO the same law that the Taliban uses to suppress individual rights to choose, in “shariah” law. Leviticus forms the basis for “human behavior” law that almost ALL religions use, except Buddists to oppress individual choice and personal freedom to choose what is best for the “individual”.

    That is why Jesus, fought the scribes and Pharasee’s not to use levitican Law to opppress the meek and the innocent. If Jesus were alive today, he would not likely support the Republican perspective of oppressing individual choice. He would “likely” have said what he said in som many similar situations (like when the woman was stoned, let him who is without sin cast the next stone). Jesus was a liberal in this case, protecting individual rights, and explaining that God (Not man) will judge each by his own individual choices and personal communication with God. What is goood for one, is not good for another, personal choice and personal rights matter, greater than some Levitican laws.

    It is the viewpoint that Republicans miss, in their hatred to impress levitican law onto all others by mis-using the US constitution, and legal process, as well as the Taliban.

  21. michael said on 18 May 2009 at 8:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is also profound to me that Jesus, in the second covenant, told everyone that there is only one sin that will prevent you from getting into heaven, and that is the sin of “non-belief”. ALL other sins will be forgiven, including abortion. Whether God approves or disapproves of an individual woman’s choice, (or a man’s choice to demand he be allowed to have custody of a child a woman wish’s to abort) depends on the personal relationship each of those individuals has with God. For some God can and will give permission to have an abortion, because of the individuals personal suffering and misery.

  22. michael said on 18 May 2009 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe the fundamental problem with all of these “political” events is that the “church” and “religion” and religious GROUPS, just like gender, racial and ethnic groups or factions, need to stay out of politics by faction and making of LAW by faction. Law is made by majority vote of individuals, electing representatives who should be looking at individual rights issues within the boundaries of the constitution, and new laws that suit both individual needs and majority needs represented by their “constituency”, not by “factions” or lobbiest groups outside of their state.

    What they “the church”, and by extension “Notre Dame” need to do instead of getting involved in politics, is concentrate on their individual congregations, role of the catholic universty, each according to their “students” individual beliefs and to guide the beliefs of individuals and individual’s choices in the church congregation for how they would act if they or their families were confronted with a potential abortion situation. They should focus more on birth control, and church assistance to the innocents and meek who need God’s protection and guiding faith to made decisions best for themselves (and no one else), guided by prayer and personal conversation with God.

    The church needs to stay focused on community leadership, by interacting with individuals who come to their church, not by entering the political fray, putting politicians into congress and supporting political “religious group” factions ALL trying to force levitican law on individuals other than themselves. This is a God centric approach, rather than a “religious faction” centric approach, which can cause much misery for “individuals” by other individuals who know nothing of the specific circumstances surrounding each abortion situation.

    I feel the same way about “illegal” immigration. Each individual must decide for themselves what is best for them, while remaining within the current law, as all churches must do, until those laws are changed, and changed only by majority vote, and not by “faction” political influence, which ALWAYS hurts a Democracy, which specifically separates church and state for this very reason.

    Religion is a battle for the hearts and minds of individuals to know God, not a battle for political factions to enforce laws on all others according to a “factions” beliefs.

  23. cdubbs said on 18 May 2009 at 8:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ah moral relativism at it’s best! Everyone is forgiven for everything without ever asking for forgiveness or expressing remorse. And God’s mercy is only a function of what MAN desires his relationship with God to be, not the other way around. How about while you are at it we call abortion by its more technical name, murder. And so we have the last brilliant thought that “For some God can and will give permission to murder because of the individuals personal suffering and misery”. I have to hand it to you, that second covenant covering abortion in your bible is sure a comforting thing to have if you get to worrying about things late at night. I can understand now why folks are calling Obama the messiah.

  24. Citizen12 said on 18 May 2009 at 11:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    legal2 said on 18 May 2009 at 5:01 pm: Flag comment

    Wonder why ND supports BO? Here’s an analysis of their Board of Trustees. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48163&print=on

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

    Right you are legal2.

    Step two- take that list of names and you find many connections with the CFR. You know, that group OB could hardly remember when questioned, but was sure he was not a card carring member of.

    As to the topic at large:

    More on Father Hesburgh the Man Who Decatholicized Notre Dame

    http://catholicism.org/more-on-father-hesburgh-the-man-who-decatholicized-notre-dame.html

  25. I'm just saying... said on 19 May 2009 at 6:36 am:
    Flag comment

    How come no one is talking about Obama’s desire to partner on reducing unwanted pregnancies and increasing adoption options? Isn’t the real answer PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies?

    I honestly believe that no one is FOR abortions and everyone wants to REDUCE abortions. If we focus on what we agree on (preventing unwanted pregnancies), perhaps we can make things better.

    Obama was correct about demonizing those who disagree with us. Such dialog prevents cooperation on those areas where we do agree. Unfortunately, focusing on the differences advances some people’s personal agendas. That’s a shame (literally and figuratively).

  26. Citizen12 said on 19 May 2009 at 7:38 am:
    Flag comment

    If they were serious about this out of control pregnancy issue they would simply stop paying for it. This is just the beginning of the financial drain put on the taxpayer by the government on behalf of the “disadvantaged”.

    How about medicare helping me to buy a new car and I’ll promise it won’t do drugs or get “caught up” in the legal system.

    Births Financed by Medicaid

    Number of Births Financed by Medicaid, 2003

    # VA # US

    27,283 1,495,266

    Births Financed by Medicaid as a Percent of Total Births, 2003

    VA% US%

    27.6% 41.0%

    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=4&sub=57&rgn=48

  27. I'm just saying... said on 19 May 2009 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Citizen12, I don’t understand your point. Medicade is a completely different conversation, are you saying that while you are against abortion, you are also against the Government that you want to legislate against abortion NOT help women save their babies by providing health services? We aren’t talking cars or drugs here… we are talking fetuses. Your approach will probably (since no proposition is certain) INCREASE abortions because the Country doesn’t necessarily completely embrace your values.
    Dialog with those you disagree with is how you find middle ground. I propose that reducing unwanted pregnancies and improving the adoption process significantly reduces abortions; therefore, it is a worthy goal. This is also a broader approach because it transcends religious values (and the major reason people like me, who are against abortion, still embrace a woman’s right to chose based upon her personal values) and separates faith based (“Church”) arguments from legislative (:”State”) governance. Using tangential arguments when presented with a reasonable proposition isn’t really a good dialectic technique.

    If you have some disagreement that the proposition that Government work to reduce unwanted pregnancies and improve the adoption process, I’d like to hear your arguments.

  28. just watching said on 19 May 2009 at 10:53 am:
    Flag comment

    While everyone is lulled into his appearances and misc. nonsense…

    > > > Another accomplishment in the first 90 days –the news
    > > media forgot
    > > > to tell you about!!!!!
    > > > Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE
    > > U. S. needs to know….
    > > >
    > > > Something happened… H.R.
    > > > 1388 was passed yesterday,behind our backs. You may
    > > want to
    > > > read about it. It wasn’t mentioned on the news…
    > > just
    > > > went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN
    > > > screen.
    > > >
    > > > Obama funds $20M in tax payer
    > > > dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This
    > > is the
    > > > news that didn’t make the headlines…
    > > >
    > > > By executive order, President
    > > > Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3
    > > million in
    > > > “migration assistance” to the Palestinian
    > > refugees and “conflict victims” in
    > > > Gaza .
    > > >
    > > > The “presidential determination”, which
    > > allows hundreds of thousands of
    > > > Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the
    > > United
    > > > States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the
    > > Federal
    > > > Register on February 4.
    > > >
    > > > Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that
    > > the order provides a free ticket
    > > > replete with housing and food allowances to
    > > individuals who
    > > > have displayed their overwhelming support to the
    > > Islamic
    > > > Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary
    > > election of
    > > > January 2006.
    > > >
    > > > Let’s review…itemized list of some of Barack
    > > Obama’s most recent actions since
    > > > his inauguration:
    > > >
    > > > His first call to any head of
    > > > state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of
    > > Fatah
    > > > party in the Palestinian territory.
    > > >
    > > > His first one-on-one
    > > > television interview with any news organization was
    > > with Al
    > > > Arabia television.
    > > >
    > > > His first executive order was to fund/facilitate
    > > abortion(s) not just here within the U. S., but within the
    > > world, using U. S. tax payer funds.
    > > >
    > > > He ordered Guantanamo Bay
    > > > closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
    > > >
    > > > He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers
    > > closed.
    > > >
    > > > He withdrew all charges against the masterminds
    > > behind the USS Cole and the”terror attack” on
    > > 9/11.
    > > >
    > > > Now we learn that he is
    > > > allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges
    > > to
    > > > move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer
    > > > expense.
    > > >
    > > > These important, and
    > > > insightful, issues are being “lost” in the
    > > blinding bail-outs and “stimulation”
    > > > packages.
    > > >
    > > > Doubtful? To verify this for
    > > > yourself:
    > > www.thefederalregister.com/d..p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > PLEASE PASS THIS ON… AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
    > > >
    > > > WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

  29. BothPartiesColludeAgainstYou said on 19 May 2009 at 1:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    No one has anyhting to say about this? It seems rather important to me. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803172.html?hpid=topnews

  30. freedom said on 19 May 2009 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “just watching,” please check http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_hr_1388_passed_behind_our_backs.html

  31. Citizen12 said on 19 May 2009 at 9:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m just saying… said on 19 May 2009 at 8:35 am
    Citizen12, I don’t understand your point.

    **********************************************************
    IJS , my point was to address your question “Isn’t the real answer PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies?” I support your posistion on this. I guess we differ on how best to address the problem.

    Providing medicade dollars for almost one half of the births in this country places no responsibility on the one giving birth. I would much rather see women save their babies by NOT having them until they are financially able to pay for the cost THEMSELVES.

    You support a womans right to chose. I agree with that as well. I also support a taxpayers right to chose not to have their money squanderd on services that exploit the true intent of these types of programs. It should not matter if its abortion, maternity and child birth related, or cosmetic surgery, the public at large should not sholder the cost financially or otherwise for what amounts to a elective procedure.

    Pull the funding for these services and you will see a dramatic drop in unwanted pregnancies when the word gets out the cost is all on them.

  32. FED UP said on 19 May 2009 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Red, White and Blue said on 18 May 2009 at 3:58 pm: Flag comment

    AWESOME post!!!!! I think people care more about cruelty towards animals than towards humans. Just shows you how screwed up this world is.

  33. Black Saint said on 21 May 2009 at 2:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I find it incredible that Obama keeping talking about the rule of Law when he chooses to ignore our Constitution against invasion, the enforcement of our Immigration Laws, and his Oath of Office. Of course, he is not alone Politicians of both parties do the same. But it shows while their words sound high minded, in reality they are just words and mean absolutely nothing to the ones mouthing them! In fact, our Politicians after having allowed the largest invasion in history and the killing and suffering of thousand of American Citizens from robberies, rapes, assaults & every crime imaginable and payed Billions on Billions to the invaders of tax payer money, that is not enough reward, now they intend to reward them with American Citizenship for their Invasion and Crimes against American!

  34. Chris Royse said on 21 May 2009 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    If the 60+ million American Catholics voted in-line with the Church’s teachings, there would be no more debate over abortion. The problem is, you have Catholic politicians who disregard their faith in order to achieve short-term political gain and thereby create confusion through their actions and double speak in order to fulfill their own selfish, personal desires. If a man/woman will completely go against their own chosen faith’s teachings, what does that tell you about anything they promise us while campaigning? While in this instance religion is an example, what’s at the heart of the matter is flawed character.

    One clear example of this can be found right here in PWC with the participation of Catholics Frank “pro life” Principi and Gerry Connolly (NARAL endorsed) actively campaigning for Obama, a candidate who was NARAL endorsed and continually voices his support for abortion. Combined with Catholic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s disregard for the Pope’s personal appeal to her that she not support abortion rights, Frank, Gerry and Nancy create a Catholic “trinity of death” that goes from the lowest level of politics locally to the highest in the House of Representatives beginning right here in our own County. This is very sad. Connolly is so out of line with his own Church that he waged numerous attacks, based upon faith, at fellow Catholic Keith Fimian in last year’s Congressional race. I asked him in a public forum last year, then Chairman Connolly, to please stop the attacks and offer an apology to his fellow Catholic. His response? “No, I cannot be held accountable for what people in my campaign do.” Well, so much for the party of Truman where “the buck stops here.”

    After my letter to the editor in December calling Supervisor Principi out for his support of Connolly and Obama in the previous election, he confronted me personally and said “you got it wrong partner, I’m pro-life.” I said, “not as long as you are a Catholic and supporting Connolly and Obama.” He walked away with no other comments and drove off in his car, the one that still contains the campaign sticker of NARAL endorsed Congressman Connolly.

    Remember, for Catholics, the guidance is very clear, do not support pro-choice candidates, legislate from a position that protects the sanctity of life and provide no honors to pro-choice advocates. Any Catholic, that is a politician or in any leadership position, that fails to follow this clear guidance should be subjected to the utmost of scrutiny by all voters and followers, not just Catholics, as someone with flawed character and in my experience, when you come across flawed character, a lack of integrity isn’t far behind.

  35. BothPartiesCollugeAgainstUsAndMarketToOurFears said on 21 May 2009 at 5:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    “If the 60+ million American Catholics voted in-line with the Church’s teachings, there would be no more debate over abortion.”

    And if they followed their church’s lead in all matters, we’d let pedophiles run free without punishment and actively conceal knowledge of their activities from law enforcement and from parents of children in their care. Now that’s what I call “bad character”! We’d also use no birth control.

    Perhaps if the Catholic Church is so far from having its own house in order, it should refrain from telling everyone else how to live? It’s no wonder hardly anyone takes the Catholic Church serioiusly these days.

  36. Chris Royse said on 21 May 2009 at 7:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Both Parties, I think today’s article in the NYT about the horrendous abuses of children in the “care” of the Church in Ireland for over a century is a good example of the lack of character and integrity among those that claim to be faithful Catholics but have another agenda, like many of our Democrat politicians today. If you are not Catholic, no one is telling you how to live, just saying if those that claim to be Catholic voted the way the way of their faith, there’d be no debate.

  37. Chris Royse said on 21 May 2009 at 7:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Editorial note, in the above response post I am not saying any of our Catholic Democrat leaders are child abusers by referencing he NYT article about the Church’s abuses in Ireland.

  38. BothPartiesColludeAgainstUs said on 21 May 2009 at 8:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Only the Republican Catholics are real Catholics, or something like that … you know, you sound silly to most people.

    What does it mean to be “Catholic”? Or “Christian”? Nothing. These are self-applied labels. (As is also the case with “conservative”, “liberal”, “Republican”, “Democrat”, etc.).

  39. Gurduloo said on 22 May 2009 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    If the 60+ million American Catholics voted in-line with the Church’s teachings, there would be no more debate over the death penalty.

  40. Chris Royse said on 22 May 2009 at 8:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Guruloo, that is correct.

  41. Gurduloo said on 22 May 2009 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Except that there are no candidates who truly reflect Catholic teachings - that is rejecting abortion AND the death penalty. So Catholics are left to choose one or the other.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1655