Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
"Women's health" and "reproductive freedom?" Last time I checked, pregnancy wasn't a disease. Never more has the government intruded on "the most private family matters" as when the Supreme Court chose the path of the "privacy jurisprudence." Think about it. How much ink was spilled on the most intimate details of sex prior to the Griswold decision? The government has been more interested and involved in the most "intimate decisions" since inventing imagined "liberty interests."
I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.
Translation: "a woman's right to intentionally murder."
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.
There is no need for abortion. I won't support women and families if the choice is to kill their unborn children. I guess we're not united, Barry!
There can be no common ground on an intrinsic evil such as contraception. Does "preventative services" include education for chastity?
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.
So the President has taken the position that the fact that women have wombs and can have babies gets in the way of women's opportunities and rights. Wow. So much for the dignity of women. Translation: women you must become a man in order to have "no limits on your dreams" and "to be treated fairly" and "paid equally."
Sunday, January 18, 2009
And they apparently keep on hiring idiots.
And homosexuals, of course. So it would be hard for even an AP reporter trying to tell the straight story to report (accurately) that the Vatican's efforts to stem homosexual behavior flow from the disaster that active homosexuals wrought for years, exposed in the scandals that have emerged since 2001.
A copy editor, a national desk -- somewhere in the news chain of command there sits a gay-friendly type who has no interest in the story, or the truth, but just wants to propound his propaganda. So we read that "experts on sex offenders say gays are no more likely than others to molest children."
Either the reporter/editors or the experts are lying.
Love those 'experts." Brian Clowes, of Human Life International, found that gay priests were hundreds of times more likely to abuse than heterosexual ones, according to the USCCB's own figures.
On the other hand, when you see "experts say," or "analysts agree" in a news story, brace yourself for the reporter/editor's personal ideological opinions.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
McCain had nothing but disdain (dare I say contempt?) for Ron Paul, who has been proven right on the financial meltdown and so much more. And Santorum's latest insight leads me to believe that McCain doesn't like the Republicans who (in his view) abandoned him, either (he is undoubtedly miffed that Sarah Palin was his Energizer Bunny long after he had run out of steam -- and money.)
Like Bush, McCain is interested in his own legacy - and he doesn't like being a loser. Would it be out of character for him to "cross over" with "bipartisan spirit" and become the dependable 60th vote the Democrats need to break any GOP filibusters?
Justice Kennedy loves being the swing vote on the Supreme Court; wouldn't McCain enjoy the limelight (oh so graciously provided by the usual media suspects) that would follow his "statesmanlike" maneuvers?
Of course, the pro-life movement will remain in the shadows if it stays tied to the GOP. As Phyllis Schlafly has long observed, we need to be a third force -- but not a third party.
Many defenders of liberty, advocates of the Constitution, and even hard-core Republicans would support the pursuit of justice and a defense of the Constitution (as required in the president's oath of office, the only passage in the Constitution put in quotation marks, to make that duty perfectly clear).
Sure, many would wince as evidence emerges that the people they supported actually manipulated them, exploited them, robbed them, betrayed them, and wrought terrible damage to the country (and, for many, the party) they love. But people see those emotions in divorce courts every day. Why not in the political sphere?
Frankly, divorce is exactly what many GOP party hacks must embrace. Until the party is willing to acknowledge and condemn the disasters wrought by its leaders for the past eight years, it will never recover its unity or its reason for being. Until they swallow hard and do the right thing, they will be living a lie, and be impotent as a result.
Witness today's news that Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thinks it's just fine that Mr. Geithner be confirmed in spite of his admitted shortfall of tens of thousands of dollars in his tax returns. Graham, morally emasculated by his support of Bush's crimes, must now embrace -- even celebrate --Geithner's nomination: "These are huge times. Now is not the time to think in small political terms," oozed Graham. He's only a petty thief, So put Geithner in charge of trillions of secret dollars!
Great job, Grahammy!! Because you supported "our" crooks, you now have to support theirs.
With this kind of leadership, the GOP is destined for oblivion -- and deserves it.
Apparently,Mr. Medved is ignorant of metaphysics and the Constitution.
Altho his analysis is profoundly flawed (Says Sam Huntington), if Medved were correct he would still be the victim of consequentialism – that is, asserting that doing something wrong wrought something right.
Only God can bring good out of evil. Bush didn’t, and Medved can’t.
Conservative critics of Bush have been willing to apply the same critical analysis to liberal presidents too. Is Helen?
By the way, because we opposed the war on Constitutional grounds, we principled conservatives have been called “left-wingers” (Richer Perle), “anti-Semites” (Jacoby), and “Bush-haters” (Bush WH flaks).
These guys were hijackers indeed. But will Helen and her liberal colleagues tar us true conservatives – who opposed the hijackers as strongly (or more) than Helen did -- with their brush in the future? Will Helen admit that, say, Ron Paul was the most prescient and accurate of the GOP presidential candidates?
We await he balanced views.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Father Neuhaus was a good friend of Christendom College and drew a good crowd whenever he visited here. He sometimes differed with the Wanderer, but admired it, he told me in a welcome letter, which I was surprised to receive just last summer.
May he rest in peace, and may First Things continue to serve Holy Mother Church.