Recently in Abortion Category

There are one or two commentators in Boston who never viewed Ted Kennedy as a lion of anything. Howie Carr watched Senator Kennedy throughout his public career and did not like what he saw.

Kennedy's abandonment of his pro-life stance stands in stark contrast to the efforts of his recently deceased sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver on behalf of the unborn, though she is better known for founding the Special Olympics to benefit those with intellectual disabilities.

While he bears responsibility for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, consider also the millions of deaths to which he has contributed by switching to support of abortion for political expediency in his failed run for the presidency in 1980. Until then, his postion in the Senate since 1962 had been that abortion "was not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life."

The Vatican newspaper's front page rightly criticized Kennedy's anti-life stance while noting his passing. That he will have a Catholic burial hopefully signfies a death bed confession of that grave sin against humanity and Christian morality.

Is it too much to hope he has left a statement to be made public expressing sorrow and repentance for his betrayal of the unborn? What a profound effect such a message might have on mealy-mouthed Catholic hypocrites like Senator John Kerry, who have adopted the formula first enunciated by Mario Cuomo, at Notre Dame, no less: "While I'm personally opposed to abortion, I won't impose my religious beliefs on others."

What Catholic priest would have the backbone to demand or even suggest it? Certainly not one the Kennedys would call in for last rites.

We won't hold our breath waiting.

Ted Kennedy's legacy not as heroic as some might think

By Howie Carr New York Post
August 27, 2009

I never voted for Ted Kennedy, not once, and neither did maybe a quarter to one-third of the Massachusetts electorate, although you'd never know that from the echo chamber of the mainstream media since his death in Hyannisport late Tuesday night.

While offering condolences to the Kennedy family at this sad moment, it is important to note that his life was not as simple, nor heroic, as is now being portrayed. On the cable channels yesterday, his fellow Senate graybeards, of both parties, were lamenting the passing of what was invariably described as Ted Kennedy's "collegial" Senate - where voices were seldom raised, and partisan bickering ended when the gavel came down to end the session.

All of which would have come as a surprise to Robert Bork, the Supreme Court nominee of whom the collegial Ted said in 1986:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters . . ."

So much for collegiality. Of course, Kennedy is now endlessly lauded for his support of "women's rights," i.e. abortion. But into the 1970s, before the Roman Catholic Church's influence began to wane, Kennedy was a traditional pro-life New England Democrat.

Here was his take on abortion in 1971:

"Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized - the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that in his first Senate campaign in 1962, Kennedy was shaking hands at a factory-gate during a shift change. A haggard worker began berating him about how he'd never worked a day in his life. According to the legend, at that point another salt-of-the-earth blue-collar type leaned in and told Kennedy, "Never worked a day in your life, kid? You ain't missed a thing."

But in fact he had. Yesterday the tributes kept mentioning his commitment to the "working class." He fought for, as President Obama said on Martha's Vineyard of all places, "an America that is more equal and more just."

But more equal and more just for some people than for others. When it came to the white ethnic working class from which his father came, Kennedy just plain didn't get it. Whether it was court-ordered busing in Boston in the 1970s, or the affirmative action policies that stymied the careers of so many of his family's traditional voters, Kennedy never grasped the depth of the blue-collar frustration as he veered left. And what infuriated them even more was that so many of them had grown up in homes where on one side of the mantel was a faded photo of the martyred JFK, and on the other the pope, with a dried-up palm frond given out at Mass on Palm Sunday between them.

Chappaquiddick, of course, never went away. But sometimes Kennedy could seem oblivious even to that ultimate blemish on his career. In 1974, when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for his Watergate crimes, Kennedy issued this thundering statement:

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

On issue after issue he was wrong - the nuclear freeze, the Reagan tax cuts, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which he assured his Senate colleagues would not lead to a "flood" of immigrants into America's cities. With a Tele-Promp-Ter, he could be articulate, but when he wasn't using his glasses to read a prepared statement, he was often an oratorical mess. In 2005, at the National Press Club, he referred to the current president as "Osama bin La-uh, Osama Obama, uh Obama."

And yet he was always protected by most of the media, who shared his views on just about everything. In 1962, at the behest of President Kennedy, the Boston Globe played the story of his expulsion from Harvard below the fold on the front page. To the very end the Globe did its best to shield him - last week the struggling Times-owned broadsheet broke the story of his deathbed attempt to change the Massachusetts law on Senate succession, without mentioning that he himself had lobbied in 2004 to enact the law he was now denouncing as undemocratic. Only then, he was for stripping the governor of his right to fill a Senate vacancy, because, you see, that governor was a Republican.

The Globe reported that Kennedy was extremely concerned that the people of Massachusetts would have no representation in the Senate for five months until the special election. The fact that he had already missed 97 percent of the Senate roll-call votes in 2009 was not noted until the next day - in a different newspaper.

The hagiography will continue throughout the weekend. We all agree that Ted Kennedy should rest in peace. But let's not forget that there was more, much more, to his "legacy" than is being reported on MSNBC.

Though not mentioned by Carr, Kennedy's vicious mendacity in attacking Judge Bork during his confirmation hearing to be a Supreme Court Justice should not be forgotten. It has poisoned the judicial confirmation process ever since.


It is astonishing how far out of the mainstream of America President Obama has been and is. Throughout his life (that is, as much as he has allowed us to know about) he has sought out as associates, colleagues and mentors people who hate America, its free markets and its dedication to individual freedom. Frank Marshall Davis, member of the American Communist Party, black power activists and Marxists during college years, followers of Marxist Saul Alinksky during his community organizer days, ACORN, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi,Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Edward Said, Michael Pflegher,

Along the way he developed a desire for control of other peoples' lives, the kind that a totalitarian collectivist government exercises, because he believes he knows how to run peoples' lives better than they do for the good of society. This desire for power to control life has evidenced itself most strikingly in the extreme positions he advocates on killing babies, including forcing U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions worldwide. It is notable that every high-level Catholic he has appointed is a supporter of abortion. He has pledged to Planned Parenthood he will wipe out every restriction on abortion. Even his desired health care bill has the government getting involved in facilitating end-of-life decisons. And two of his top "science" advisors have written extensively about the practicality of government choosing who will live and who will die, as this editorial describes. One of them has even opined that a child really doesn't become entitled to be considered a person until several years after birth.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

EDITORIAL: Obama's mad science adviser

When it comes to having past views that should frighten every American citizen, Ezekiel Emanuel (see above editorial) has nothing on the president's "chief science adviser," John P. Holdren. The combination of Mr. Holdren with Dr. Emanuel should make the public seriously concerned with this administration's moral compass concerning care for the old and weak.

Earlier this month, Mr. Holdren served as co-chairman when the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology met for the first time. It's a disgrace that Mr. Holdren is even on the council. In "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book he co-authored in 1977 with noted doomsayers Paul R. and Anne H. Erlich, Mr. Holdren wrote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

In case compulsory abortion wasn't enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men," they wrote. "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."

It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods." After noting that, well, yes, there were "very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. "To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements," they wrote. "It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have "evolved," health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president.

Professor Thomas Sowell captures well the President's desire to control life and death and the role of these advisers in his plans:

[President Obama] said, "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."

But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give "independent" guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisors, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."


Seldom do you find a piece of writing that absolutely captures the essence of a proposal or an event.

This Wall Street Journal scenario does that.

It shows what this president's cultish fixation on achieving the power of life and death over all Americans, indeed, all humans, can lead to.

Promoting abortion without limits is not enough, taxpayer funding of abortions in Africa is not enough, taxpayer funding of abortions in America is not enough. Power over the infirm, the handicapped, the aged must follow.

He wouldn't pull the plug on his grandma, he chuckled. But what about yours?

OPINION AUGUST 17, 2009, 11:04 P.M ET

Wall Street Journal

The Panel

What death by bureaucratic fiat might look like.


It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.
--President Barack Obama in a New York Times interview on how costly medical decisions should be made.

The people behind the long table do not know what they've become. The drug of power has been sugared over in their mouths with a flavoring of righteousness. Someone has to make these decisions, they tell their friends at dinner parties. It's all very difficult for us. But you can see it in their eyes: It isn't really difficult at all. It feels good to them to be the ones who decide.

"Well, we have your doctor's recommendation," says the chairwoman in a friendly tone. She peers over the top of her glasses as she pages through your file.

You have to clear your throat before you can answer. "He says the operation is my only chance."

"But not really very much of a chance, is it?" she says sympathetically. Over time, she's become expert at sounding sympathetic.

"Seventy percent!" you object.

"Seventy percent chance of survival for five years--five years at the outside--and even that only amounts to about 18 months in QALYs: quality-adjusted life years."

"But without this procedure, I'll be dead before Christmas."

You try to keep the anger out of your voice. The last thing you want to do is offend them. But the politicians promised you--they promised everyone--there would never be panels like this. They made fun of anyone who said there would. "What do they think we're going to do? Pull the plug on grandma?" they chuckled. The media ran news stories calling all rumors of such things "false" or "misleading." But of course by then the media had become apologists for the state rather than watchdogs for the people.

In fact, the logic of this moment was inevitable. Once government got its fingers on the health-care system, it was only a matter of time before it took it over completely. Now there's one limited pool of dollars while the costs are endless.

"You have the luxury of thinking only of yourself, but we have to think about everyone," says the professor of ethics. He's a celebrity and waxes eloquent every Tuesday and Thursday on Bill Maher Tonight. "This isn't the free market, after all. We can't just leave fairness to chance. We have to use reason. Is it better for society as a whole that we allocate limited resources for your operation when we might use the same dollars to bring many more high quality years to someone, say, younger?"

"I'm only 62."

He smiles politely.

"Look, it's not just about me," you argue desperately. "My daughter's engaged to get married next year. She'll be heartbroken if I'm not there for it."

"Maybe you should have thought of that before you put on so much weight," says the medical officer. "I mean, you people have been told time and again . . ."

But the chairwoman is uncomfortable with his censorious tone and cuts him off, saying more gently, "Perhaps your daughter could move the wedding up a little."

The member in charge of "stakeholder" exceptions shakes her head sadly as she studies your file. "If only you could have checked off one of the boxes. It would be awful if you were penalized just because of a clerical oversight."

It begins to occur to you that this is how you are going to die: by the fiat of fatuous ideologues--that is to say, by the considered judgment of a government committee. They are going to snuff you out and never lose a minute's sleep over it, because it's only fair, after all.

That logic is implacable too. Free people can treat each other justly, but they can't make life fair. To get rid of the unfairness among individuals, you have to exercise power over them. The more fairness you want, the more power you need. Thus, all dreams of fairness become dreams of tyranny in the end.

You know you should keep your mouth shut. Be humble--they like that. But you speak before you can stop yourself.

"What you're doing here is evil," you cry out. "You're trying to take the place of God!"

"Sir, this is a government building!" says the chairwoman, shocked. "There's no God here."

Mr. Klavan is a contributing editor to City Journal. His latest novel is "Empire of Lies" (Harcourt, 2008).

Will taxpayers be funding abortions under Obamacare? Yes.

Even though 90% of abortions are elective, why should abortion be in a taxpayer-paid health program? Is it because Obama is the most pro-abortion president in American history and the most pro-abortion official in the United States and has promised Planned Parenthood that he would work to have taxpayers pay for abortions for all without restrictions?

Obama is fixated on the power of life and death. Obamacare would give the Obama government life and death power over all Americans.

Say no. Report yourself to as being opposed to Obamacare. Hands off my healthcare!

Poll: 86 Percent of U.S. Wants Abortion Restrictions
Friday, July 10, 2009 1:45 PM

The American people continue to move to the pro-life perspective on abortion according to the latest Moral Compass survey by the Knights of Columbus and Marist Poll.

The poll mirrored findings of other recent surveys, showing that more Americans identify as pro-life than as pro-choice, and that the vast majority of Americans favor restricting abortion.

Among the key findings:

86% of Americans would significantly restrict abortion.

60% of Americans would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother - or would not allow it at all.

53% of Americans believe abortion does more harm than good to a woman in the long term.

79% of Americans support conscience exemptions on abortion for health care workers. This includes 64% of those who identify as strongly pro-choice.

69% of Americans think that it is appropriate for religious leaders to speak out on abortion.

59% say religious leaders have a key role to play in the abortion debate.

80% of Americans believe that laws can protect both the health of the woman and the life of the unborn. This includes 68% of those who identified as strongly pro-choice.

Additionally, the data showed that since October nearly every demographic sub-group had moved toward the pro-life position except for non-practicing Catholics and men under 45 years of age.

Independents and liberals showed the greatest shift to the pro-life position since October, while Democrats were slightly less likely to be pro-life now than they were in October.

"The data shows that the American people are placing an ever increasing value on human life," said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. "Far from the great divide that most people think exists when it comes to the abortion debate, there is actually a great deal of common ground. Most Americans are unhappy with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe

vs. Wade, and pundits and elected leaders should take note of the fact that agreement on abortion need not be limited to the fringes of the debate and issues like adoption or pre-natal care. The American people have reached a basic consensus, and that consensus is at odds with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe."

The survey of 1,223 Americans was conducted May 28 - 31 and has a margin of error of +/-3%.

ABC's Jake Tapper excoriates Sarah Palin for calling the Obama health plan "evil" because of its bias towards shuffling the old -- and the infirm -- off the mortal coil as soon as they or their parents or guardians can be persuaded to give it up. Tapper says he read the bill (he's an exception) and says the language that concerns her doesn't lead to her "evil" conclusion about "death panels."

Well, Charles Lane writing for the Washington Post (not exactly a right-wing newspaper) agrees with Palin without saying so.

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

As it happens, I have a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. I'm glad I do. I drew them up based on publicly available medical information, in consultation with my family and a lawyer. No authority figure got paid by federal bean-counters to influence me. I have a hunch I'm not the only one who would rather do it that way.

For Obama, cutting health care costs requires "you" -- or your loved ones -- packing it in.

The Obama death cult doesn't stop with millions of abortions around the world, including late term abortions and born-alive infanticide. Even for those born alive, he wants to decide who lives and dies, even in America, Section 1233 power. Dominion over life and death is the ultimate aphrodisiac.


As we have often noted, Obama is the most pro-abortion public official in the United States and with the power of the presidency is instituting American policies that will lead to the death of millions if not tens of millions of innocent lives.

Jeff Jacoby traces the lineage of abortion supporters back to the Nazi eugenics movement and the American Margaret Sanger, who wanted to purify the human race by eliminating the undesirables. He found a startling "echo" of that desire in a recent statement by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted in The New York Times:

"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out,'' she said in a recent New York Times interview. She was referring to the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of Medicaid funds for abortions - a law the Supreme Court upheld in Harris v. McRae in 1980. "Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. . . But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way.''

Populations that we don't want to have too many of - who would those be, exactly? Minorities? The poor? The handicapped?

Jacoby then notes:

[A]s Jonah Goldberg points out in his 2008 bestseller "Liberal Fascism,'' abortion today "ends more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined.'' More than half of all black pregnancies in America end in abortion. Surely that wasn't what Justice Ginsburg meant by "populations that we don't want to have too many of.'' Or was it?

Clearly, Obama is following in the footsteps of those eugenicists. But, by so doing, he is engaging in a form of genocidal suicide, eliminating the lives of untold millions of black people that he so ardently identifies with in every one of his anti-white diatribes.


More that 70 Catholic bishops, tens of thousands of Notre Dame graduates and hundreds of thousands of Catholics and non-Catholics have condemned Notre Dame for honoring President Obama, the most extreme and powerful proponent of unlimited abortion in the history of public officials in America.

The sad event is now past.

Archbiship of Denver Charles Chaput speaks of Notre Dame's shame and the embarrassing spectacle of Notre Dame's president John Jenkins taking pride in how the world looks to Notre Dame for moral leadership. Notre Dame failed in its responsibiity under Jenkins' leadership. He should resign or be fired.


Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

"I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world."

Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame's president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.

Let's remember that the debate over President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.

We also have the duty to oppose him when he's wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation's history: Roe v. Wade.

In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops' guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame's 2009 Laetare Medal honoree - who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university's action. It ignored appeals from the university's local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I've heard from too many to count.

There was no excuse - none, except intellectual vanity - for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

These are hard words, but they're deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins' own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had "a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world." For many faithful Catholics - and not just a "small but vocal group" described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.

The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the "Catholic" case for "pro-choice" public service. At the time, Cuomo's speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it's clearly adroit. It's also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins' explanations, and President Obama's honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they've given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be "Catholic" in the public square.

Chicago's Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame "didn't understand" what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. Notre Dame's leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame's critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist - by their words, actions and financial support - that institutions claiming to be "Catholic" actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame's failure may yet do some unintended good.


While Obama is betraying Israel and endangering the lives of American citizens by his foolishly romantic pursuit of the Islam of his childhood, he is step by step working to undermine the culture of life in America and the world and marching to take his place alongside Mao, Stalin and Hitler as one of history's leading killers of defenseless human beings.

Complicit in his killing campaign is what should be a staunch ally in the fight to respect the dignity and sanctity of every life the University of Notre Dame. But it has sold out its Catholic values to go along and get along with the rich and powerful and to bask in the prestige they grandly bestow. It is led by little men who have brought shame on the university so many have loved and revered, including those who spent formative years there as students. One Notre Dame graduate expresses his grief:

Obama Scored Big at Notre Dame
At least the president is forthright about his principles.
Wall Street Journal
MAY 19, 2009

Seldom does dawn rise on an America where the morning's New York Times displays a more intuitive grasp of a story than the New York Post. The coverage of Barack Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame, however, was such a day. Where the Post headlined an inside spread with "Obama In the Lions' Den," the Times front page was dominated by a color photograph of a beaming president, resplendent in his blue-and-gold Notre Dame academic gown, reaching out to graduates eager to shake his hand or just touch his robe.

It was precisely the message President Obama wanted to send: How bad can he be on abortion if Notre Dame is willing to honor him?

We cannot blame the president for this one. During his campaign for president, Mr. Obama spoke honestly about the aggressive pro-choice agenda he intended to pursue -- as he assured Planned Parenthood, he was "about playing offense," not defense -- and his actions have been consistent with that pledge. If only our nation's premier Catholic university were as forthright in advancing its principles as Mr. Obama has been for his.

In a letter to Notre Dame's Class of 2009, the university's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, stated that the honors for Mr. Obama do not indicate any "ambiguity" about Notre Dame's commitment to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. The reality is that it was this ambiguity that the White House was counting on; this ambiguity that was furthered by the adoring reaction to Mr. Obama's visit; and this ambiguity that disheartens those working for an America that respects the dignity of life inside the womb.

We've been here before. In his response to an inquiry from this reporter, Dennis Brown, the university's spokesman, wisely ignored a question asking whether "ambiguity" would be the word to describe a similar decision in 1984 to give Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York, the Notre Dame platform he so famously used to advance his personally-opposed-but argument. Or the decision a few years later to bestow its highest Catholic award on Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, another supporter of legal abortion. It seems that whenever Democratic leaders find themselves in trouble over their party's abortion record, some Notre Dame honor or platform will be forthcoming to provide the needed cover.

Probably Notre Dame is rich enough that it can safely thumb its institutional nose at the 70 or so bishops who publicly challenged the university for flouting their guidelines on such invitations. Nor can we expect much from Notre Dame's trustees. At a time when Americans all across this country have declared themselves "yea" or "nay" on the Obama invite, the reaction of Notre Dame's board is less the roar of the lion than the silence of the lambs.

Pro-lifers are used to this. They know their stand makes them unglamorous. They find themselves a stumbling block to Democratic progressives -- and unwelcome at the Republican country club. And they are especially desperate for the support of institutions willing to engage in the clear, thoughtful and unembarrassed way that even Mr. Obama says we should.

With its billions in endowment and its prestigious name, Notre Dame ought to be in the lead here. But when asked for examples illuminating the university's unambiguous support for unborn life, Mr. Brown could provide only four: help for pregnant students who want to carry their babies to term, student volunteer work for pregnant women at local shelters, prayer mentions at campus Masses, and lectures such as a seminar on life issues.

These are all well and good, but they also highlight the poverty of Notre Dame's institutional witness. At Notre Dame today, there is no pro-life organization -- in size, in funding, in prestige -- that compares with the many centers, institutes and so forth dedicated to other important issues ranging from peace and justice to protecting the environment. Perhaps this explains why a number of pro-life professors tell me they must not be quoted by name, lest they face career retaliation.

The one institute that does put the culture of life at the heart of its work, moreover -- the Center for Ethics and Culture -- doesn't even merit a link under the "Faith and Service" section on the university's Web site. The point is this: When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness.

In the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian, there is a wonderful photograph of Father Ted Hesburgh -- then Notre Dame president -- linking hands with Martin Luther King Jr. at a 1964 civil-rights rally at Chicago's Soldier Field. Today, nearly four decades and 50 million abortions after Roe v. Wade, there is no photograph of similar prominence of any Notre Dame president taking a lead at any of the annual marches for life.

Father Jenkins is right: That's not ambiguity. That's a statement.

For a true witness to life, one need only turn the clock back a few weeks to an address the reporter Willam McGurn gave at the Center for Ethics and Culture at Notre Dame.


In the early days of the 21st Century, the greatest killer of innocent human beings in all of history has emerged in the United States.

It is Barack Obama.

Think of those tens of millions around the world -- many of whom are "people of color " -- whose lives will be terminated because of Barack Obama. He will be joining the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and Mao snuffed out the lives of millions of innocent people.

He's using the money of American taxpayers, the majority of whom are pro-life, to kill the most vulnerable, the innocent who have committed no crime, the unborn.

Why does this president have such a fixation on killing the unborn? Is it the power over life he relishes, the power to kill?

As a state senator in Illinois, he wanted babies who survived botched abortions denied medical care and tossed out with the dirty laundry.

He was the most outspoken supporter of partial birth abortion in the U.S. Senate, wanting the partial extraction of a baby from the birth canal so her head coud be crushed to be legal.

He publicly stated he wanted as his priority to sign a bill that would sweep away all restrictions on abortion, parental notification, waiting periods and counseling sessions, so that his abortionist supporters could continue to grow their mutibillion-dollar business of killing for profit

There isn't a word in the dictionary to describe what he is doing: The systematic, unjustified killing of mankind. Genocide?, No, too narrow. Murder? Homicide? Homocide?

It is an understatement to call him the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States


Obama's campaign to spread the culture of death continues. Yesterday he issued an executive order authorizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for the purpose of destroying human beings at the embryonic state for research. Many scientists have correctly pointed out that there is no scientific basis for claiming that stem cell research is better served by use of embryonic rather than adult stem cells and current research is proving conclusively that adult stem cells are delivering superior results. Indeed, the clamor for federal funding of embryo-destructive stem cell research is in large part due to private money not being as convinced as the true believers that this is a productive line of research.

Some still argue that an embryo isn't human, that it is a matter of belief not science as to when human life begins. Not so.

While claims that embryos and fetuses are members of the human family are often dismissed as based on faith alone or merely a matter of personal opinion, from a scientific standpoint this is entirely untrue. At the moment of conception, when egg meets sperm, either in the petri dish or the fallopian tube, the complete genetic blueprint of a new unique human individual comes together. This is scientific fact. It was at the moment of conception that each and every reader of this article began to journey through the developmental stages of life. Those destroyed in an abortion are genetically human except under the most bizarre circumstances. They are also certainly alive, consuming nutrients, excreting waste products of metabolism, growing, possessing the potential to reproduce, and responding to external stimuli such as local pH, availability of oxygen, and the presence of hormones in the fetal and maternal circulation. Abortion kills a human being in the earliest days, weeks or months of its development, period.
Incredibly, in an astonishing display of his total disregard for the ethics of destroying human life, Obama also repealed a presidential executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

Professor Robert George of Princeton pointed out Obama's perverse, unhealthy fixation on death last October:

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Obama's reputation as the most anti-life public official in America remains intact.

OPINION MARCH 10, 2009 Wall Street Journal
The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research
Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it.


Yesterday President Barack Obama issued an executive order that authorizes expanded federal funding for research using stem cells produced by destroying human embryos. The announcement was classic Obama: advancing radical policies while seeming calm and moderate, and preaching the gospel of civility while accusing those who disagree with the policies of being "divisive" and even "politicizing science."

Mr. Obama's executive order overturned an attempt by President George W. Bush in 2001 to do justice to both the promise of stem-cell science and the demands of ethics. The Bush policy was to allow the government to fund research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines, where the embryos in question had already been destroyed. But it would not fund, or in any way incentivize, the ongoing destruction of human embryos.

For years, this policy was attacked by advocates of embryo-destructive research. Mr. Bush and the "religious right" were depicted as antiscience villains and embryonic stem-cell scientists and their allies were seen as the beleaguered saviors of the sick. In reality, Mr. Bush's policy was one of moderation. It did not ban new embryo-destructive research (the president had no power to do that), and it did not fund new embryo-destructive research.

"Moderate" Mr. Obama's policy is not. It will promote a whole new industry of embryo creation and destruction, including the creation of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are destroyed. It forces American taxpayers, including those who see the deliberate taking of human life in the embryonic stage as profoundly unjust, to be complicit in this practice.

Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy, and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making. This claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on two counts.

First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.

For those who believe in the highest ideals of deliberative democracy, and those who believe we mistreat the most vulnerable human lives at our own moral peril, Mr. Obama's claim of "taking politics out of science" should be lamented, not celebrated.

In the years ahead, the stem-cell debate will surely continue -- raising as it does big questions about the meaning of human equality at the edges of human life, about the relationship between science and politics, and about how we govern ourselves when it comes to morally charged issues of public policy on which reasonable people happen to disagree. We can only hope, in the years ahead, that scientific creativity will make embryo destruction unnecessary and that as a society we will not pave the way to the brave new world with the best medical intentions.

Mr. George is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton and co-author of "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" (Doubleday, 2008). Mr. Cohen is editor-at-large of The New Atlantis and author of "In the Shadow of Progress: Being Human in the Age of Technology" (Encounter, 2008).

Omnia21 has documented a number of times (for example, here, here and here) the common history of Obama, David Axelrod and Rham Emanuel from the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

All the tricks learned in Chicago to mislead, lie and dissemble to advance the agenda are now operative in the White House. Rahm Emanuel makes it clear that this crisis is a prime opportunity to push their programs. During the campaign it was Axelrod who kept the candidate on the message of "hope" and "change" rather than discussing what he really intended to do as president.

Before the campaign began, no doubt Obama shared with Axelrod his socialist background and his goal to re-engineer the American economy from capitalism to socialism. No doubt it was Axelrod who decided it best to declare off limits the Obama years at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School. Obama had carelessly written he had sought out for companions Marxist socialists and black power advocates. That was a dangerous error that should not be compounded with more information. The public would have been able to judge Obama better if they knew what subjects he studied, what his theses and other papers were about and what postions he took. But all of that was forbidden to inquiry as were the circumstances of Obama's birth, wherever that took place.

There would be no hint of the totalitarian state that Obama planned. When a 2001 radio interview surfaced in which Obama called the U.S. Constitution flawed because it did not provide for redistribution of wealth, only protecting the people from its government, the campaign and the mainstream media brushed it aside as just old news, old thinking out loud and trotted out a University of Chicago law professor (now in the Administration) to quiet fears.

Chief Strategist of the campaign David Axelrod was there every step of the way. Obama even made pro-life noises to mislead when he was and is the most pro-abortion, anti-life public official in the United States, as he is proving with a stream of anti-life executive orders and budget proposals to fund abortion mills. As Professor Robert George of Princeton noted, Obama has a morbid, cult-like perverse fascination with death:

Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

Economist Robert Samuelson writing for the Washington Post today calls Obama "The Great Pretender." The orchestratrator of the Great Charade to mislead America during the campaign and now in the White House is Chicago Mayor Daley's former strategist David Axelrod.

March 9, 2009
President's Political Protector Is Ever Close at Hand
By JEFF ZELENY New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The pepperoni and cheese pizzas had been delivered, and a meeting about how to sell President Obama's economic plan was set to begin -- not at the White House, but a few blocks away in the seventh-floor apartment of David Axelrod.

Mr. Axelrod took a seat in his living room, with the Washington Monument visible in the distance, and asked how the president's proposals were being received in the country. He went around the room, calling on a cluster of strategists who were on hand to discuss the latest batch of polls and focus groups conducted for the White House.

It is known as the Wednesday Night Meeting, an invitation-only session for a handful of advisers, nearly all of whom played a key role in paving Mr. Obama's path to the Oval Office. The location varies, but on a recent evening Mr. Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, was feeling under the weather, so a group that he says is "like family to me" met at his place.

"It helps clarify my thinking to talk to people who I have faith in," Mr. Axelrod said, reluctantly describing the weekly meetings he had hoped to keep under wraps so he would not suddenly be overrun by requests from people hoping to dispense advice.

The two-hour sessions are just one way in which Mr. Axelrod is making the transition from Chicago political consultant to the White House. His title does little to capture his full importance to Mr. Obama. His voice, and political advice, carry more weight than most anyone else's on the president's payroll.

The question for someone with the access and authority that Mr. Axelrod enjoys in the White House is how he exerts his influence with the president, the White House staff, Congress and other constituencies.

The circle around Mr. Obama has grown exponentially since he arrived in the White House. An army of new assistants, deputies and advisers surrounds him, but it is Mr. Axelrod who sits the closest to the Oval Office. His proximity is a symbol, in a unique West Wing kind of way, of how close he remains to Mr. Obama.

"I get to see him when I need to see him," Mr. Axelrod, 54, said in an interview in his office, which is slightly larger than a service elevator. "It turns out he has a few things on his plate, so I try not to abuse that privilege."

Gone are the leather jacket and wrinkled plaid shirts he wore during the campaign. He has four new suits -- and an array of neckties -- for his new position. The wardrobe caught the president's eye at a recent White House dinner for the nation's governors.

"Everybody looks extraordinary," Mr. Obama said. "Even Axelrod has cleaned up pretty well."

Mr. Axelrod has played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He has devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation's fiscal crisis.

A glimpse of Mr. Axelrod's day offers a look at how he spends his time.

He arrives at the White House shortly after 7 a.m., a torturously early hour for a man known during the campaign for sending messages until the small hours of the morning. A cup of Earl Grey tea is waiting for him -- he hates the taste of coffee and recalls having only two cups in his life -- as he walks into his first appointment of the day, a meeting in the office of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, who has been a friend for 25 years.

He attends the economic briefing in the Oval Office, where the latest news and grim statistics are relayed to the president by a battery of advisers. When the classified intelligence briefing begins, Mr. Axelrod leaves the room. Later, he and a speechwriter sit down with Mr. Obama to review the three-ring binder containing each speech or statement the president will make that day.

Often in the late afternoons, he walks to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council, stopping to grab a handful or two of the M&Ms that are in a large bowl outside the room.

He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would "fail."

Mr. Axelrod's background has been rooted almost entirely in politics. Strong similarities exist between his trajectory and that of Karl Rove, a friend and longtime counselor to former President George W. Bush. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Axelrod forged partnerships with their clients long before they began campaigning for the presidency, guided them through elective office and, ultimately, to the White House.

Mr. Axelrod rejects the comparison, saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama's image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country's political DNA, as Mr. Rove often talked about. The two men have never met, but in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House.

"He's in the fomenting commentary business," Mr. Axelrod said recently over brunch. "I'm not sitting here moving pieces around from the White House. I'm not trying to run the Democratic Party. I'm not trying to supplant the brilliant policy makers who are here."

But the Wednesday night meetings suggest that the strong belief in polling and focus groups from the campaign are alive in the White House. Joel Benenson, a pollster for Mr. Obama, is among the participants in the sessions. He said that Mr. Axelrod often asked one question above all: "How do we make sure that the arguments from the president's agenda are made in the most persuasive way?"

Mr. Axelrod has never worked in government, and the adjustment has been abrupt. ("Look, they made me a bureaucrat," he told one of his first visitors to his transition office, a government badge hanging from his neck.)

He refers to his new job in the parlance of his long-ago career as a newspaper reporter: he is "on assignment in Washington." His wife visits a few times a month, and he tries to return to Chicago just as often.

"It's surreal, so much of this is," Mr. Axelrod said. "It is an incredible privilege to be here, but it's kind of hard to absorb and get your hands around all we're trying to do."

His imprint is felt across Washington and the Democratic establishment in the country. He works at explaining Mr. Obama's proposals on taxes, health care or the economy, no matter if his platform is a senators-only luncheon or a television talk show.

"It's very important to have someone there to understand why Barack Obama ran for president," said David Plouffe, the campaign manager, who remains a close political adviser to Mr. Obama and a participant at the Wednesday meetings.

There are few words that come across the president's lips that have not been blessed by Mr. Axelrod. He reviews every speech, studies every major policy position and works with Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, to prepare responses to the crisis of the day.

The gold-colored sofa in his office is often a bullpen for brainstorming new speeches, with the writers surrounded by two walls of campaign photos and a large picture of Manny's, his favorite Chicago deli.

Jon Favreau, the president's chief speechwriter, said there was a familiar refrain during these meetings, with Mr. Axelrod urging the team not to become consumed by the insularity of Washington. "Can I speak on behalf of the American people here?" he said Mr. Axelrod often asks aloud.

That is precisely why, Mr. Axelrod said, he convened the Wednesday Night Meetings: to take the pulse of what people were thinking. Locked in the White House all day, he added, he can no longer hear those voices on his own.

On the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision creating "a license to the kill the unborn," Professor Robert George of Princeton University delivered a stirring call to resolve and action on behalf of the unborn. President Barack Obama, the most anti-life public official ever in the history of the United States, is a looming threat to the lives of millions of human beings with his stated intent to massively fund and promote abortion in the United States and around the world.

At this low point for the pro-life movement, Professor George compared the anti-slavery movement in its early days when the cause seemed hopeless. Yet those who supported freedom for slaves, such as the great crusader Wilbur Wilberforce, were condemned as zealots and worse, but nonetheless they persevered and ultimately brought about the end of slavery. The compelling morality of their cause prevailed. So too can the battle be for the equal protection under the law of every human being from his conception to his natural end.

Professor George warns that whatever Obama might say in trying to win over to his side people of conscience he must be resisted:

Barack Obama is trying to win over religiously serious Catholics and Evangelicals, without altering in the slightest his support for abortion, including late-term and partial-birth abortions, the funding of abortion and embryo-destructive research with taxpayer dollars, the elimination of informed consent and parental notification laws, and the revocation of conscience and religious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and other healthcare workers and pharmacists. He will ultimately fail. We must see to it that he fails.

Read Professor George's rallying cry here.

Professor George said the battle will go on. He suggests for those who care about protecting the unborn to follow the battles by reading First Things (by subscription and online), The Public Discourse (online) and (online).

Moral Accountability states its mission clearly -- to mobilize even those misguided Catholics and Evangelicals whose wishful thinking led them to support Obama's election to now join in "repelling the attacks that will be launched against life and marriage by this administration."

President Obama has started his stealth campaign to expand abortions in the United States and around the world. Late Friday, without media present, he issued an executive order requiring taxpayers to fund abortions internationally through U.S. agencies and the United Nations. Those "family planning centers" will now be promoting killing the unborn instead of raising healthy babies.

We have been disturbed by Obama's unhealthy fixation on reducing the number of live births by killing when clinics in the United States and around the world already provide full access to all family planning information. Pro-abortion advocates assert they are not advocating abortion as as an alternative way of family planning, but evidence suggests that is exactly what they are doing and what Obama intends. Organizations like Obama supporter Planned Parenthood makes much if not most of their money from the abortion business.

Obama is proceeding on his sweeping expansion of the abortion business in his usual
Alinsky incremental community organizer approach. Do a bit now and another bit later. Before you know it you've accomplished the whole package. And do it quietly. On a Friday afternoon after the reporters have gone and there's a fair chance even the Saturday newspapers won't pick the story up.

Next step in this stealth approach will probably be authorizing taxpayer funding of the industrial breeding and destruction of human beings for research, a totally unnecessary explosion of abortion, because medically it has been conclusively shown that stem cells not involving embryos offer the same if not better promise of medical success. Professor Robert George of Princeton has also noted the perversity of Obama's fixation on death:

It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

There were some still working late on Capitol Hill who were appalled by the tragedy Obama set in motion Friday afternoon:

Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas _ something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."

"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky echoed those sentiments calling Obama's action "counter to our nation's interests."

Catholics-in-name-only Democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts both had words of praise for Obama's pro-abortion action, ignoring the words of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Pelosi and Kerry are supporting the unconscionable killing of human beings.

While claims that embryos and fetuses are members of the human family are often dismissed as based on faith alone or merely a matter of personal opinion, from a scientific standpoint this is entirely untrue. At the moment of conception, when egg meets sperm, either in the petri dish or the fallopian tube, the complete genetic blueprint of a new unique human individual comes together. This is scientific fact. It was at the moment of conception that each and every reader of this article began to journey through the developmental stages of life. Those destroyed in an abortion are genetically human except under the most bizarre circumstances. They are also certainly alive, consuming nutrients, excreting waste products of metabolism, growing, possessing the potential to reproduce, and responding to external stimuli such as local pH, availability of oxygen, and the presence of hormones in the fetal and maternal circulation. Abortion kills a human being in the earliest days, weeks or months of its development, period.

The Vatican said it best: "Of all the good things he could have done, Obama has chosen the worst." His action will lead to the "slaughter of the innocents" worldwide in the millions.

This writer argues that the pro-abortion forces may not be on the cusp of victory as they seem to think with the election of the most pro-abortion public official in the United States President Barack Obama.

The progress he cites is encouraging, but much vigilance and hard work lie ahead.

January 22, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

The Case for Pro-Life Optimism

Yes, Obama's election is a setback, but things aren't so bad as they seem.

By Michael J. New

The pro-life movement is despondent. During the recent election cycle, pro-lifers incurred a series of disappointing political defeats, culminating in the election of a president who steadfastly supports keeping abortion legal. Furthermore, some pundits suggest that the Republican party's pro-life stance hurt its candidates, and thus the party should take a more moderate position.

Worse, the new president has pledged to support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would give the legislative and executive branches' seal of approval to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision and roll back many of the pro-life movement's hard-fought gains. Because of the recent electoral losses in the U.S. Senate, the pro-life movement is desperately scrambling to find 41 senators to mount a successful filibuster.

Is this the dystopian scenario we face today? Nope. What I have just described is the political landscape in 1993, the last time the pro-life movement found itself in the political wilderness. There were plenty of reasons for pessimism at the time, but the movement refused to give up and went on to make some very impressive gains during the 1990s--gains that remain today, and should give pro-lifers plenty of hope for the future.

Information coming from sources inside the Obama transition camp indicate that President Obama plans to launch a major attack immediately after his inauguration.

The target isn't Iran. It's unborn children.

As a start, Obama has said he will immediatly cancel all of the presidential executive orders protecting life and allow the industrial breeding and destruction of human beings for embryonic stem cell use despite evidence that other stem cells not involving the industrial breeding of embryos are at least as good as if not better for medical use. Millions more humans -- science has proved incontrovertibly that life begins when egg and sperm are joined -- will die. Professor Robert George of Princeton sees an unhealthy perversity in Obama's position:

It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

As tragic as that decision will be for the sanctity of life, Obama is also preparing a massive taxpayer "bailout" of about $1 billion to reward his fervent supporters at Planned Parenthood and NARAL. But it's not only taxpayer money he wants to send their way. He intends to eliminate all of the 500 or so restrictions placed on abortion over the past 30 years by federal and state legislatures and approved by the Supreme Court. Even partial-birth abortion, which 75% of Americans oppose, would be legalized. In 2007 Obama told Planned Parenthood he wanted his first act as president to be signing the euphemismistically named "Freedom of Choice Act," which will do all of these things and more. Even edducation programs about the benefits of abstinence would be wiped out. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe noted this:

Obama advocates abortion rights even more sweeping than those enacted under Roe v. Wade. "The first thing I'd do as president," he assured the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The measure would not only codify Roe, it would eliminate even restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court has allowed - the federal ban on government funding of abortion, for example, or the law prohibiting partial-birth abortion.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL are the two leading advocates in the United States of terminating the lives of the unborn. Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion mill in the country, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Though the media never mention it, abortion is the leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 1.2 million human beings each year. 40 million since Roe v. Wade. And Obama's action to permit the industrial breeding and destruction of human beings, reminiscent of the eugenics practiced in the 1930s, will add how many millions more to the death toll?


The Wall Street Journal reported on a new poll on what voters think of Republicans. Steve Moore for the WSJ reports with our italicized comments interspersed:

The first comprehensive poll on why voters voted the way they did in November has just been released by the communications firm Target Point Consulting. I received a full briefing from the pollster Alex Lundry on what these 1,000 voters think of Republicans. The short answer is: not much.

The GOP is "in great disfavor with the electorate right now. Republicans are blamed for fiscal mismanagement, overspending, and the bad economy," says Mr. Lundry.

Fiscal mismanagement when in office. Absolutely. Overspending. Absolutely. The bad economy. The burden of the party with executive power, the prior "good" economic times forgotten -- and the media never even acknowledged those good times when they were happening. As for the worldwide financial crisis we are experiencing, this was triggered by Democrats and Democratic policies on housing that Republicans unsuccessfully tried to change, but the media didn't report it that way and the fast-talking Democrats were quicker and better at pointing the finger than the Republicans -- a key Republican failing.

"Democrats are seen as a center-right party, while Republicans are seen as dominated by the right." That's a big problem because even though 84% of voters say they are center or right on the ideological spectrum, the 48% in the middle, i.e., independents, are tilting heavily toward Democrats.

This view is so hilariously wrong but nonetheless extremely disturbing. That voters think Democrats are "center-right" seems impossible, considering they nominated the most far-left senator in the party who advocates a "spread the wealth around" policy is astounding and fast-talking liberals like Barney Frank are praising expanded welfare. It shows the skill of Democratic PR aided by the left wing mainstream media. For example, the myth that man is responsible for climate change, a concept embraced by the Democratic Party, and will require actions that will thrust millions into poverty, is deemed reasonable and mainstream by the media. The Republican position that growth of the world economy is paramount and man's impact on climate is either minimal or altogether unproven is deemed by the media as extreme far-right thinking. That such false impressions have developed is proof of Republican ineptness in the age of instant media.

The fairly narrow victory by Barack Obama in the popular vote disguises an "enthusiasm gap" among Democratic and Republican voters. Some 65% of Obama voters "strongly supported" him, whereas only 33% of John McCain voters "strongly supported" the Arizona Republican. This helps explain the river of money for Mr. Obama and the massive grassroots advantage for the Democrats.

This isn't such a big problem for the long run. Voters "wanted" the first black president to show they weren't racist and Obama fanned that feeling skillfully if despicably by unfounded but effective charges of racism against Clinton and McCain. Also, McCain wasn't much of a conservative and left too many in the base sitting on their hands.

Issue by issue, when the issues are clearly understood, the Republican positions are held by a substantial majority. Telling the story well with credible spokesmen is what's needed. The handicap of the left-wing media -- and what Sam Huntington called the "de-nationalized elites" in academia and elsewhere -- is a fact that has to be addressed in all communication plans. For example, when Democrats and the elites belittle traditional American ethics and morality, patriotism and military service, and Republicans allow them to get away with it, they are missing huge opportunities. Republicans have not been forceful enough in standing up for positions that a majority of Americans agree with, fearing the backlash from the leftwing media. For example, the left wing attacks aggressively on the extreme position on gay marriage, crying "bigotry" and "denial of civil rights," and conservative spokesmen cringe instead of issuing forceful rejoinders, even though the majority of people vote for the traditional concept of marriage. But if conservaties allow the one-sided debate to continue as it is, conservative positions will be eroded, to the vast injury of American society. "Anything goes" is not an American value.

But the biggest problem revealed by the poll for Republicans is that "voters no longer believe that the party cares about the middle class in a meaningful or credible way," Mr. Lundry explains. "Democrats cleverly frame every issue as for the middle class."

Most everybody thinks they belong to the middle class. Democrats though are aiming to solidify their voting support among Americans who will be delighted with handouts from the government. The more they can make people dependent on government, the larger their support base. This is the age-old struggle between Marxist equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity that this nation was built on. Rob Peter to pay Paul. The nation is very close to having more Pauls than Peters, since so many now pay no income tax. Consequently, they have no regard for Peter, who is the middle class person footing the government bills. This is a huge problem and Obama with his pledge to "spread the wealth" will make it worse. He would transform our society into a European-style one, which is already staggering under its unsustainable socialist burdens.

What issues have Republicans hurt themselves most on? Three that jump out are immigration, where Republicans are seen as too strident; the War in Iraq, where voters are eager for closure; and bailouts, where voters have become angry and resentful at throwing money at failing giant corporations. Furthermore, as economic anxieties have escalated, independent voters are now more favorably inclined toward protectionist trade policies. Free marketeers need to make a better case for the positive benefits of international trade or more restrictions are certainly on the way.

The statements here are questionable. Overwhelmingly, Americans disapproved of all the proposed immigration plans, including McCain's and the President's. No sensible conservative proposal entered the debate; conservatives only operated at the margins or, with Tom Tancredo, at the extreme. The borders must be made secure, first and foremost. Any path to citizenship must include English and thorough Americanization and assimilation, so that the kinds of separatism and hostility shown by La Raza and the pro-Mexico rallies in Los Angeles would be disqualifying for citizenship and permanent residency. Legal immigration should be based on what America needs by way of skills rather than on family relations.

As for the economic problems and the bailouts, again it is Republican failure to characterize the situation accurately that allowed the Democrats and the media to blame the Republicans, especially the Bush Administration. Democrats instantly blamed Bush and Wall Street, when it was Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and, yes, Barack Obama, who brought on the subprime loan failure fiasco that triggered the world financial panic. To this day how many average voters knew of Bush and Senate Republican efforts to reverse Clinton subprime loan policies and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were blocked by Democrats led by Frank and Dodd and supported by Senator Obama? As for pinning Wall Street on the Republicans, that's a joke: Obama raised several times more money from Wall Street than McCain did. Republicans are for small business and entrepreneurship, not "Wall Street greed," greed that feeds Democratic coffers very generously. President Bush has often been faulted for not responding forcefully to criticism, fair and unfair, and in that respect he did serve the country and conservatism well. Unfortunately, Congress at this time doesn't have impressive Republican spokesmen to make the case, either.

Democrats and the leftwing media did a disservice to the country by politicizing the Iraq war. However, it will fade as any kind of positive issue for the Democrats and should emerge as a success that Republicans can take credit for - a tyrant and his threat to his neighbors and America removed, a democratic country functioning in the Middle East assisting in the war against violent Islam and, soon, substantially more oil in the world supply. A more aggressive response by the White House to the avalanche of Democratic criticism would have helped.

The good news is that voters are very fearful that Democrats will go too far with their liberal agenda. When voters are asked what they "like least about the Democrats," the most common answers volunteered were: "taxes going up," "big government," "liberal," "raise spending," and even "socialism." These broad economic and fiscal principles appear to present the GOP with its biggest opening.

Again, these Democratic positions will not become the albatrosses they should be unless Republicans are forceful and aggressive. They must find their voices and their spokesmen. Also, the damage that the global warning myth and the economically disastrous Democratic plans to counter it will do to the average citizen must be aggressivley exposed and discredited. This is a major issue to get on the side of the middle class against the environmental elites who own the Democratic Party.

The poll also reveals that Republicans can win back voters by opposing Democrats on several specific policies coming down the pike in 2009: card-check labor union elections, bailouts for banks and auto makers, welfare expansions and affirmative action.

Denying workers the vote in union elections is outrageous. Bailing out the auto unions, which is what will happen, is outrageous. Explaining why getting a hand up instead of a handout is better for the individual, the family and America is a challenge but must be done. As for affirmative action, the voters have just elected the first affirmative action president, so, who knows how big an issue that will be.

The key for the months ahead is for Republicans to posture themselves, advises Mr. Lundry, "not as obstructionists, but as a check on the Obama agenda."

Too many are being lulled by Obama's excellent appointment for defense and economics into thinking he will go mainstream. He will show his extremist side very soon: His pro-abortion agenda is breathtaking in its scope. He intends to expand abortion far beyond Roe v. Wade. Even some of his backers are arguing that infanticide is just an extension of abortion. His "spread the wealth" plan has the potential to expand the handout class into a majority for the Democratic Party. There are many, including minorities, particularly Hispanics, who may rebel against his cultural policies who can be captured for the conservative cause. Obama says he wants to transform America and what he is proposing, based on his Marxist socialist background and associations and his support for abortion without limits, is an ugly America.


As we celebrate the birth of a child who taught love and the value of every life, here on earth and in heaven, the world cannot close its eyes to those malign forces who are fixated on death. It must open its eyes and ears to the child's message or else the culture of death will prevail. Is the world listening, is America listening?


Evidence is mounting that Barack Obama was elected president BECAUSE he was black.

Pride of blacks resulted in at least a 95% vote for Obama.

But white guilt fanned by Obama himself, his campaign and the media probably played an even bigger part.

So far, much of the evidence is random and anecdotal, but the accusations by Obama supporters and the media that those not planning to vote for Obama were “racists” certainly had a powerful effect. Voters were anxious to prove they weren't, that they had "moved on" from that.

Obama himself played the race card againt Hillary Clinton in the primaries and against John McCain in the final, playing the victim and inviting a guilty white reaction.

Media glorification of Obama and their trashing of Palin (a threat since she added an exciting and appealing dimension to the McCain candidacy) made it still easier to assuage white guilt with an Obama vote.

The elections aren't over yet. And the outlook is grim. The Democrats are close to achieving a filibuster-proof Senate.

For those who fear Obama's extreme socialist and anti-life agenda and honor the U.S. Constitution, it is a dangerous situation. Obama has made it clear he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and should have guaranteed not equal opportunity but "fair" wealth redistribution. He has said he would appoint radical judges to the Supreme Court who have "empathy" for African-Americans and others he considers disadvantaged to "interpret" the Constitution the way he wants. He clearly prefers giving those he wishes to benefit a handout, not just a hand up. Since the money has to come from somewhere, it will clearly come from the successful and productive in society through much higher and more sharply progressive taxes. Defense and national security are likely to suffer as funds are diverted to social and income redistribution programs. The number one cause of death in the U.S. today is abortion and if Obama's pledge to Planned Parenthood to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act is realized, the number of those deaths will explode.

In the House, the solid Democrat majority will be able to ignore the minority Republicans altogether on virtualy all issues. With the filibuster threat the majority in the Senate usually has to listen to and work with the minority and that is why the Senate often tempers extreme legislation originating in the House. That won't be the case if the Republicans can routinely muster 60 votes to block filibusters. Minority Republicans will be virtually defenseless except for their ability to get their message out to the American people. You can be sure the media won't be helping them do that.

How is this happening?

Democrats appear to be attempting to steal a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. The incumbent Republican Norm Coleman had about a 1,000 vote lead over the execrable former sick comedian Al Franken when the polls closed on Election Day. Mysteriously, additional ballots turned up after the initial reporting, all favoring Franken. About half of them came from two small towns in the heavily Democratic north. 32 more ballots were "found" in a poll worker's car. Coleman's lead shrank to about 200 votes. The Power Line blog, two of whose writer-lawyers live in Minnesota, are following developments closely. A statewide recount will get underway and is estimated to take a month. The Minnesota Secretary of State who oversees elections is a Democrat who was affiliated with ACORN before his election. Coleman has already filed one lawsuit alleging fraud.

Democrats made a concerted effort to elect Democratic Secretaries of State in states in which close elections were likely (because of the closeness of party registrations and past elections) and have had considerable success. One of those targeted states was Minnesota.

In Georgia, incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss received 49.9% of the vote in a three-way race and there will be a run-off election. Democrats are sure to pour oceans of money into the race.

If Coleman and Chambliss lose, Democrats will have 59 Senate seats (with Alaska's Republican seat still undecided) and will surely be able to get the 60 votes to block Republican filibusters. There are two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who normally vote with the Democrats and the two liberal Maine Republican senators (Collins and Snowe) all too frequently side with the Democrats.

Even veteran newsmen Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose admitted on a recent Charlie Rose show that they didn't know much about Obama. Nor did most of those who voted for Obama, many of whom just wanted to elect the first non-white president of the United States, assuming he was just a "normal" Democrat and they liked the idea of "change." Well, the change we may get may not be to their liking.

Update: In Alaska absentee ballots are being counted and the Democrat has moved into the lead. The best guess is he will hold the lead. This brings the Democrat Senate total to 58 with Minnesota very much at risk because of the manipulation that is going on there. Whether Democrats move to an absolute 60 majority or not, they, with the aid of two independents, one of whom (Sanders of Vermont) will always vote with them, have now a filibuster-proof majority to be as radical as the House will be.

Catholic bishops are still meeting in Baltimore and the discussions are getting heated about the lack of backbone on the issue of life by too many of their number. A new statement will be drafted under the leadership of the Archbishop of Chicago George, who has been outspoken in his condemnation of the "intrinsic evil" of abortion and of Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion. There was unanimity in aggressively opposing Obama's extreme pro-abortion agenda.

Obama backs Planned Parenthood's Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964) which, among other things, would force Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions or lose federal funds. Bishops vowed hospitals would close rather than comply; Catholic hospitals are roughly one-third of all U.S. hospitals, so their closure would be a disaster for the country's health care network.

Catholic Bishops Vow to Confront Obama Administration Over Abortion
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

BALTIMORE -- The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.

"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians "can't check your principles at the door of the legislature."

Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance.

"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.

The discussion occurred on the same day the bishops approved a new "Blessing of a Child in the Womb." The prayer seeks a healthy pregnancy for the mother and makes a plea that "our civic rulers" perform their duties "while respecting the gift of human life."

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Along with their theological opposition to the procedure, church leaders say they worry that any expansion in abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said the hospitals would close rather than comply.

During the campaign, many prelates had spoken out on abortion more boldly than they had in 2004, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back.

Yet, according to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. The new bishops' statement is meant to drive home the point in a way that cannot be misconstrued.

"We have a very important thing to say. I think we should say it clearly and with a punch," said New York Cardinal Edward Egan.

But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.

Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.

"We must act and be perceived as acting as caring pastors and faithful teachers," said Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D.

But Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician and president of Catholic Democrats, said angry statements from church leaders were counterproductive and would only alienate Catholics.

"We're calling on the bishops to move away from the more vicious language," Whelan said. He said the church needs to act "in a more creative, constructive way," to end abortion.

Catholics United was among the groups that argued in direct mail and TV ads during the campaign that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights.

Chris Korzen, the group's executive director, said, "we honestly want to move past the deadlock" on abortion. He said church leaders were making that task harder.

"What are the bishops going to do now?" Korzen said. "`They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration."

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Abortion category.

ACORN is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.