Cowed by Communists

There is a lot of talk in the news and political blogs these days about how Reaganism is dead. No kidding. Do you think Reagan would have been apologizing for America and trying to court favor with Islamic nations (at all, true, but especially) while North Korea, a crazy communist despotism, were spitting in our faces?

What has (or will) become of us and our American way? We used to believe we were right. We used to be a beacon of freedom and justice. Now North Korea thumbs its nose at us, testing nukes and threatening war if we try to interfere, likewise threatening our allies, and meanwhile holding American journalists as prisoners. They will be tried in a North Korean court and could be sentences to up to 10 years in a labor camp. What are we doing about it? Hoping that negotiations go well. Seems change has come to this country. We've really lost our nerve. We are speaking softly and it seems we've put down the stick. 

Anyone remember why Hitler was able to start s*#t in Europe? There are many textbook reasons, but bottom line - no one wanted to step up and stop him. Mr. Obama really is moving us closer to European-style democracy. Here comes the appeasement.

Words

Ok, ok - name these speakers:

1. "How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

 

2. "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Give up? Well, number one is President Obama at Notre Dame. Number two is President Obama just the other day. So, we're not supposed to be demonizing each other, but...that doesn't mean we can't make broad brushstrokes about the other side, right? Some nutjob murdered Dr. Tiller (the notorious abortionist), so of course that means pro-lifers are prone to heinous acts of violence. 

First off, I'd like to point out that there is a subtle yet very important difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion," which is quite visible in Tiller's murderer. Second, this is too subtle for many people to notice, but Mr. Obama is a master of words. That doesn't mean that he is sincere.

Mental Yawn

Trying to get my act back together and make some posts, but a lot of interesting news combined with my general lack of motivation recently has made it difficult to pin down anything to write about.

Yesterday I bought plane tickets for my trip home in August. I tell you now, those twelve days will see much Mexican food. It'll be good to see family and friends and pick up some supplies.

I guess the most newsworthy of recent events, in my mind, is the Notre Dame commencement address by President Obama and the delivery of the honorary law degree. I am completely disgusted with the whole thing, yet I can't stop reading about it. Train-wreck syndrome, I suppose. Obama and Fr. Jenkin's talk of "dialogue" is empty rhetoric. If you haven't read their speeches, I would consider it worthwhile to do so. Fr. Z gives some excellent critique at his website. 

Here's a nice motivational poster-style graphic from Curt Jester that nicely displays Notre Dame's commitment to "dialogue." 

It's hard for me and others to understand why so many people, especially on the left, are so enthralled by what Obama says. When most politicians speak (especially conservatives), they are, of course, liars and thieves - undeserving of our trust. But when Obama opens his mouth, honey flows from his silver tongue, and all that is forgotten. Why is it that none of his followers seem to notice that his words only mask his actions? It's all a political game. He is a brilliant player, and he has gotten away with much so far. It remains to be seen how long he will enchant the majority of Catholics...

Here is an interesting analogy. I do love Lord of the Rings. Obama as Saruman? Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

ND Scandal Escalates

I knew the controversy would continue to rage until after the ceremony, but I didn't expect this. Mary Ann Gledon, the former US Ambasssador to the Vatican was to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal on May 17th in recognition of her outstanding service to the Catholic Church and society. She has just announced, however, that she has declined the award in light of the Obama invitation scandal, and particularly the fact that it was argued by ND's administration that she would balance out Obama's presence (her being strongly pro-life).

Coverage here at LifeSiteNews.com.

Fr. Jenkins and the White House have both expressed their "regret," and ND intends to quickly find a new recipient. I can't wait to see who they choose. No doubt this time they will choose someone less deserving who won't make a fuss about Obama's invitation.

Father Barron on Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope"

I saw this linked on another Catholic blog, but I can't remember which - apologies!

Fr. Barron is very articulate and gives some intelligent and well-thought-out observations about Mr. Obama's most recent book. I'll have to watch more of his videos.

"Dialoguing" with Mr. Obama

My respect for Professor Hadley Arkes continues to grow. Over at the Catholic Thing, Dr. Arkes proposes that Fr. Jenkins and Mr. Obama live up to their words and concede to a debate. The gauntlet is thrown, but the real question is whether or not anyone will take notice. It would probably be too inconvenient for them to.

Have a read here.

Latest ND Coverage

Over at your local AmP, as usual.

Bishops Lynch and Morlino have added their voices to the chorus of protests over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to deliver this year's commencement speech and receive an honorary law degree. Bishop Lynch's statement isn't as strong as som of the others have been, speaking of "uncivil" and "venomous" rhetoric from our side. I'm quite sure what he's referring to in that regard - I haven't seen much that I'd consider disrespectful, although perhaps there have been some uncharitable characterizations of Fr. Jenkins. Then again, what do you expect when someone is perceived to be a sellout?

(Images:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/03/images/large/PAC_1_pmass4_206294_0203.jpg

http://www.madisondiocese.org/Portals/0/People/MorlinoBishop.gif)

Head to head about ND

Dueling editorials, with commentary from Fr. Z. I sincerely wonder whether Dr. Kmiec actually believes all these things he says about Obama (I mean, it's ridiculous to what extent he defends the man); I guess I can't imagine him being such an ardent Obama-supporter otherwise, but it's also difficult for me to understand how such an intelligent man can distort logic so.

What, told you so?

You know, I think this is a sign that I've really come a true skeptic. So Senator McCain was right on spending - big deal. I mean, you know how I feel about the job Mr. Obama is doing, but I just can't help thinking McCain would have broken his campaign promises, also. Maybe not on this issue, but it's purely speculative to say he would be doing a better job than Obama right now. So yes, McCain was right on spending and the deficit. He still lost, though, so what does it matter?

Bravo Mr. Hannan

Watch as Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliment, blasts British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I wish someone would give a similar speech to Mr. Obama. However, he's new in office and it's going to take the American public some time, I'm afraid, to realize what's going on. Pay attention to Mr. Hannan as he speaks of squeezing the productive bit of the economy to fund the unproductive, and the foolishness of trying to "spend your way our of recession or borrow your way out of debt." Sounds a lot like what we're doing, doesn't it?

The real meaning of separation of Church and State

Over at the Catholic Thing, Austin Ruse writes about a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on Bishop Burke in the hopes of shutting him up about Kathleen Sebelius, the rabidly pro-abortion 'Catholic' governor of Kansas who has been nominated to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Ruse provides a good analysis of the situation, especially in pointing out that 

"More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast."

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right  of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The whole "separation of Church and State" provision, which has become a mantra for the progressive movement, does not exist in and of itself - it is based upon a popular interpretation of this amendment. As you can see, it is nowhere stated that religion cannot be involved in public life or in government. What this amendment intended was that there should be no established state religion, nor would anyone be denied the freedom to practice his or her own faith. In other words, the government shall not interfere with religion; not vice versa. I think the paranoia afflicting the secularists and "religion should be practiced behind closed doors" crowd is needless. If religion did infiltrate the government, it would do so only in its moral tendencies, as a state religion can never be established. Plus we're living in a democratic republic. If those religious views were not upheld by popular opinion, they would be ousted. Ah, but I'm forgetting - boo morals, right?  

Jenkins' act of public disobedience

The latest at AmP.

Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix has weighed in on the Notre Dame scandal with a fair and strongly-worded letter to the university's president. The highlights include the statement:

"It is an act of public disobedience to the Bishops of the United States."

And a quotation of John Paul II:

"John Paul II said, 'Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.'"

(The above quotation is from Christifidelis Laici, see section 38).

I don't know what the future holds, but it seems the bishops are beginning to unite, with the exception of a few stragglers. In my mind, the bishops are much like ents - a comparison drawn by a friend of mine. They are powerful and slow-moving. I only hope that half the forest isn't burned down by the time they decide to take decisive action. Moves like this are positive, and I'm really looking forward to Bishop Burke's visit to D.C. in May. He may be able to rally our American bishops. In any case, let's continue to pray for courage and wisdom for all of our Church leaders. +1 to bishops for Bishop Olmsted's letter, too.

(Image from http://www.gallupindependent.com/2008/06June/060608bishop.html)

Notre Dame scandal heating up

Many alumni are taking action, as are several student groups. But the administration seems to be standing firm. I don't expect this will amount to much more than a hullabaloo in the long-run. It's another strike for ND's Catholic affiliation status, but how many strikes they need before they're out of there is anyone's guess.
I suppose that's not completely fair, though. It would be more justified for the reprecussions to fall on Fr. Jenkins and the administraton, not the school itself. After all, there are plenty of alumni, factulty, and students who oppose this; just not enough, it would seem.

The Bishop on ND and the overall problem

Via CNA, Bishop D'Arcy has released a statement about the Notre Dame scandal.

Excerpt:

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith "in season and out of season," and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

While I'm not sure that the bishop's absence will make much of a difference in th overall scheme of things, I respect his decision, and I suppose it's doubtful that he had the authority to do much more (bishops +1).  What remains to be seen, and what will perhaps have a bigger impact, is what action the students of Notre Dame take, as noted by Emily at the Shrine of Holy Whapping. 

This situation seems to be part of a much bigger problem that is spreading quite rapidly.  For a long time now, Catholic politicians have been thumbing their noses at Church teachings, ignoring central tenants of our faith, and presenting a deaf ear to their bishops.  Madame Pelosi's visit with the pope did not even change her heart.  It's even worse when this sort of conduct is coming from a priest like Fr. Jenkins (the president of the University of Notre Dame).  

There are probably several underlying problems at the root of this dilemma.  For some, like many politicians, it is a lust for power and a vanity that convinces them they can do no wrong. Their Catholic status is just that - a status, enabling them to win votes.  For many others (and perhaps partly for these politicians, as well), it may very well be a matter of poor catechesis, as my friend Ben, a theology graduate student, has pointed out to me.  I'm no expert, but this could very well be the main source of the American Church's problems. 

I've noticed an interesting link between religion and politics here.  I think one of the main culprits for this situation is "progressivism."  I don't know whether it is a root cause or a symptom.  If you've been keeping abreast of political developments over the past several months, you'll note that many of the more moderate or progressive Republicans have been calling for an expanding of the tent, so to speak.  They use such terms as "litmus test" and assert that core conservative tenants cannot be so strictly adhered to if the party is to survive. 

Likewise, there are some "Catholics" who try to pull the same nonsense.  Observe this interview with Phil Donahue regarding the Notre Dame scandal.  There are many pro-choice Catholics, huh?  Well, perhaps they shouldn't be Catholics, then.  Religion and truth do not change to suit the needs of the masses.  God does not change to assuage the consciences of those who want to have things both ways.  This progressive ideaology of all-inclusiveness is flawed and base.  Accepting practices that one believes to be evil and sinful is akin to supporting them.  

Yes, as Catholics we value charity and consider it a virtue.  But it seems these days that charity is being used as a shield by the unjust.  Where is the charity for the unborn?  

The Giver is a short novel that I suggest you read if you've not already, for I think it is one case of a disutopian society that is not too far off.  The ideas of The Sameness and "releasing" those who are of no use to the community...they seem to me to be the ultimate progressive ideals.

Return

Well, I'm back from my trip.  It was good to travel and to see my sister and friends.  It's also nice to not be traveling anymore.  I'm kind of out of it at the moment, but there is much of be done before I go back to work tomorrow. 

Disappointing, but predictable - things continue to spire downward in various arenas...I returned to news of further economic woes and moral decay.  For now I'll just point out that Obama is being honored by Notre Dame University and giving their upcoming commencement speech.  Even putting his radical pro-abortion agenda aside for a moment, what gives?  He hasn't done anything commendable thus far aside from being elected...and that could just mean he was a better liar than the other guy.

AmP and American Catholic coverage.

Update: More at Curt Jester and the Catholic Thing.

"Doing a good job"

Apparently the stimulus package is "doing a good job" stimulating the US economy, according to Mr.  Obama.  I'm not surprised at his claim, but I don't see that he's right.  I don't see that the value of the dollar has changed much, and the stock market is still plummeting.  

As someone pointed out, in the past 50 days of "stimulus" and bailout spending, not even taking the ridiculous new government budgets into account, we're spending about $1 billion an hour, and this is money we don't have.  I know we elected these people to spend (by "we" I mean the majority of the country, not everyone), but come on.  Someone's gotta see reason soon or we're going to sink.

And now we're paying for ESCR

Here's the Catholic Thing's take on it, but you can find articles on many of the major Catholic blogs.

Although Obama apparently respects those of us who disagree with him and find the practice to be unethical, he passed the order anyway. Now we're going to be paying for embryonic stem cell research.

Glad he has time to focus on these divisive social issues, now that the economy is rebounding. Oh, wait...

Obamedia starting to waver..

I'm sure there are those people who will never admit that Obama can do any wrong, or those who will be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his term runs out, then assert that although he wasn't perfect, it was mostly due to problems inheritted from Bush.  However, it is starting to dawn on at least some in the media that Mr. Obama isn't exactly the bringer of hope and change that he claimed to be.  In fact, he looks awefully like another run-of-the-mill lying, special-interest-pandering politician.  And he is a radical, not a moderate.

Here's Chris Matthews, of all people, chewing him out for not controlling earmarks as he said he would.  Who's next, Olbermann?  I'm not holding my breath, but it's possible.

And here's Jim Cramer of CNBC's Mad Money.  Cramer is not a conservative guy, and he is calling this "the greatest wealth destruction I've ever seen by a president."

Obama had better get his act together.  Our country got into this mess because people were spending money that they didn't have and borrowing what they couldn't pay back.  So Obama wants to correct the problem by...spending tax money that the government doesn't have?  Oi.

We get what we vote for

Ca-ching. 

We elected a spender, so that's what he's doing. He's spending, and spending, and will spend some more. Bush pushed through the first stimulus, so the Democrats are not solely to blame, although now they're the ones at the helm, using their momentum to push through inadequate Republican blockades.

And how are we going to pay for all this? Higher taxes, naturally. Wait for it and see. Maybe the middle class voters who supported Obama will rethink their positions in 2012, when their taxes are up 2 or 3%. Funny how people who don't want to be single-issue voters will vote on one issue when it affects them personally.

Credit where it's due

He has yet to prove that he's willing to work "in the spirit of bi-partisanship," however I give Mr. Obama some credit for at least looking like he is. 

At least he's urging the Democrats to drop the spending on "family planning" from the stimulus. What was that doing in there in the first place? This spending package sounds frightening...