Obama Makes Haste in Advancing Liberal Agenda

The remnants of a presidential inauguration still litter the streets of Washington, but that doesn’t mean Mr. Obama is taking any time in cleaning out the unwanted precedents leftover by Mr. Bush in the White House.  Obama is taking care of the low hanging fruit before he gets to the more difficult parts of his agenda.

As promised, within days of his swearing in, he has revoked the Mexico City Policy, which prevented U.S. taxpayer money from being used to provide abortions abroad.  Obama has signed an executive order closing the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay where those suspected of being terrorists are held.

For someone who has pledged to reject the influence of special interests, Mr. Obama has been very swift in responding to the wish lists of various liberal interest groups.  The pro-choice crowd couldn’t be happier that the international arm of Planned Parenthood will now be able to receive more money to terminate pregnancies in developing countries.  Similarly, the anti-war movement is pleased to see Guantanamo, the trophy room of the War on Terror, close its barbed-wire gates.

Unfortunately, these are only the preludes of a much broader agenda for American progressives.  The pro-choice lobby will continue to push its Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) until abortion is recognized as a “fundamental right” in the United States.  The anti-war groups won’t stop until every American boot is off the sand in Iraq.

One group that Mr. Obama still has to answer for are the gays and lesbians.  He ran afoul of this important liberal constituency when he invited Evangelical super star and Proposition 8 supporter Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in on the steps of the Capitol.  To ensure that the public knows he is eager either to offend everyone or include everyone, Obama then invited Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual bishop in the Episcopal church, to say a prayer on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

What will Obama do for the gays and lesbians?  The first order of business will be the elimination of the oft-mocked “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prevents open, practicing homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.  It will most assuredly be replaced with a policy that will make sexual preference an issue in military recruiting.

Obama is able to achieve all of these liberal “wants” through executive order by taking advantage of his post-inauguration honeymoon.  These controversial decisions are made through the fiat of his executive power.  A new challenge will be dealing with the legislative branch and many conservatives hope their like-minded Senators will provide a mechanism for tempering the Obama agenda.

               

Death of a Statesman – John Dingell

When Democrat Henry Waxman of California launched his bid to oust fellow Democrat John Dingell from his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Hill watchers in the know made two observations: First, they knew Waxman had the votes in his caucus because, like a good attorney, the politically astute Californian would never pose the question if he didn’t already know the answer.  Second, it signaled the beginning of the end of seniority in the House of Representatives.

John Dingell, born in 1926 and first elected to the House in 1955, is the closest thing to a statesman in a body whose membership runs for re-election every two years.  His 27 terms as a representative have earned him the distinction of being the Dean of the House – its most senior member.  Seniority means everything in the House – at least it did until Henry Waxman (a 17 termer himself) upset the applecart.  Seniority determines a member’s office, his seat at the committee, and is, in general, an indication of clout.

Unfortunately for Chairman Dingell, he is a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Detroit Democrat in Nancy Pelosi’s House.  This sort of dissent, it appears, will no longer be tolerated in the 111th Congress.  House Republicans view Chairman Dingell as someone they can work with.  Under his control, the Energy and Commerce Committee – which oversees 60% of all legislation – passed Republican bills and accepted Republican changes to Democratic iniatives.  Contrast this record of bi-partisanship with Chairman Waxman’s two years of impish delight in raking Bush Administration wrongdoers over the proverbial coals in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Waxman, who represents Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Malibu, is expected to wield the Energy and Commerce Committee’s gavel as a club, bashing any opposition to liberal agendas perpetrated by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  Dingell’s ouster is a disappointment to many Americans who hoped the Democrats would govern from the center.  In fact, one high-ranking Republican called Dingell’s defeat a “body blow” to working families.

               

Breaking News: Obama hires Emily’s List Executive Director

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

The Politico reports that President-elect Barack Obama has asked Ellen Moran, currently Executive Director of EMILY’s List, to serve as his Communications Director – a senior staff position in the White House.

This appointment represents a troubling sign to those in the pro-life community who have hoped Mr. Obama’s outspoken support for abortion would be moderated by a need to bring the country together.  EMILY’s list is a political action committee (pac), which has raised over $240 million to elect pro-choice, Democratic women.

               

American Catholic bishops weighing in on American politics

Last week, the American bishops of the Catholic Church wrapped up a crucial meeting in the midst of what has turned out to be a very busy fall. With hundreds of bishops speaking about the need to vote with properly formed consciences and the extent to which a candidates’ stance on the issue of abortion should inform an individual’s vote, there was great interest in their Fall General Assembly.

It is too early, as some may have expected, for the bishops to address the question which has been hotly debated in Catholic circles. That question is, of course, whether Catholics can vote, in good conscience, for a candidate for office who supports abortion when another, pro-life alternative candidate exists. Of course, this is a terse summary of the situation surrounding Catholics and abortion. A number of similar questions require answers, such as can “Pope John XXIII Catholic” Vice President-Elect Joe Biden and “ardent, practicing Catholic” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be said to be faithful Catholics despite their efforts to flout Church teachings on critical moral issues?

I think we will all benefit from time to decompress from the effects of the campaign’s heated and divisive rhetoric before we examine these questions as they relate to the Obama Presidency. Indeed, time alone may reveal that President-Elect Obama’s promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) “first thing” as President was political pandering to the radical Left, and his personal ambition and political deftness (as well as our prayers) may drive him to the center on the issue of life. *

Freedom of “Choice” Act

Nevertheless, FOCA, which has become an icon for what amounts to Doomsday for pro-life Americans – a reversal of the Mexico City Policy, elimination of the Hyde Amendment, destruction of conscience clauses – was discussed at some length during the bishops’ meeting. In his closing statement on Wednesday, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), while congratulating Obama, warned that

“FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars…Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.”

Cardinal George and a handful of his brother bishops warned that such actions would leave the Catholic Church no choice but to close the doors of hundreds of Catholic hospitals since they could no longer refuse to provide abortions. This would inevitably result in a serious decimation to millions of Americans’ access to quality health care and would be anything but a boon to women.

Thousands of pro-life doctors would have no choice but to quit practicing medicine because they object to conducting abortions as part of legally required care. Religious leaders would have no choice but to remain silent on abortion because they would be accused of making hate speech since FOCA would federally prohibit any “interference” in abortion. Millions of pro-life Americans would have no choice when their tax dollars and insurance premiums would be used to help others get abortions.

Blessing the unborn

While is may seem that we may be without recourse in the political arena for the time being, the bishops are making efforts to change the culture. During their meeting, the bishops approved the “Blessing of a Child in the Womb,” which reads thus,

“May almighty God, who has created new life now bless the child in your womb. The Lord has brought you the joy of motherhood: May he bless you with a safe and healthy pregnancy. You thank the Lord today for the gift of your child: May he bring you and your child one day to share in the unending joys of heaven.”

This new blessing makes it abundantly clear that the new life created in the womb is, in fact, a child of God, and any family seeking this rite in their church will bear powerful witness to their fellow Catholics about the sanctity of the unborn life. With our nation’s 67 million Catholics in a broad state of disarray on what the Church teaches on various moral issues (viz. Nancy Pelosi, Doug Kmiec, etc.) the bishops are coming to the painful realization that this is not the age of the well-educated laity.

Cutting off ACORN

Lastly, we might file this item in the “better-late-than-never” column, the Chair of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), Bishop Roger Morin, reported that it had not been giving funds to ACORN, the controversial, partisan organization which has been implicated in extensive criminal activity and voter registration fraud, since June. Consequently, no funds from the annual CCHD collection were given to ACORN to register Mickey Mouse and myriad other characters to vote.

Despite these assurances that ACORN will no longer be receiving Church funds, the CCHD reputation is irreparably tarnished and some bishops, like Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham, Alabma, are refusing to participate in the annual CCHD collection – the chief source of the group’s funds.

It doesn’t seem like anything earth-shattering emerged from the bishops’ meeting, but it did serve to demonstrate that they are steeled for the fight as they lead their flock through this challenging time. And that’s something in which I choose to take comfort.

* I readily admit this is, perhaps, too optimistic since his “Transition Team” website, change.gov, gives the following statement in President-Elect Obama’s “Women Agenda”: “Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.” (http://change.gov/agenda/women_agenda/)

               

Military Chaplains…Church and State

Tuesday’s celebration of Veterans’ Day has gotten me thinking about military chaplains. I have a family member serving on active duty in the Armed Forces in Iraq and he has told stories of the comfort and guidance provided by his unit’s chaplain. I am also uplifted by stories of brave military chaplains, like Fr. Vincent Capodanno, who have given their lives to minister to men and women serving in harm’s way.

Not everyone, however, is impressed by the service of these military chaplains. Christopher Hitchens, a writer, intellectual, and fellow Washingtonian, whom I admire greatly is perhaps the most vocal critic of our nation’s military chaplaincies. In a 2006 article in Slate he writes, “why are there official chaplains in the armed forces at all? Is not their very presence, paid for out of the public treasury, an affront to the establishment clause of the all-important First Amendment? The author of that amendment, James Madison, certainly thought so.”

As a Catholic, I like the fact that my coreligionists are able to worship as they serve our country around the world, often away from their families. However, I admit to being uncomfortable at the prospect of spending tax dollars to fund Muslim chaplains to conduct sexually segregated services – an example raised by Hitchens.

In fact, a 1986 court case (Katcoff v. Marsh) challenged the constitutionality of military chaplains, but the court found that it was within the armed forces mission to employ religious leaders. Indeed, the provision of military chaplains is critical in allowing men and women serving in the armed forces the ability to freely practice their religion.

Writing in the University of Toledo Law Review Richard Rosen summarizes the court’s finding: “Recognizing the inherent tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, the Second Circuit found that if Congress did not establish an Army chaplaincy, it would deny soldiers the right to exercise their religion freely, particularly given the mobile and deployable nature of the nation’s armed forces.”

So, as we remember the brave men and women who have fought for our country, let us also remember the men who have served them as chaplains, following them around the world, through artillery fire and machine gun volleys and roadside bombs. I hope we are always willing to ensure that those who fight for our freedoms are able to exercise theirs.

               

Eric Wilson reflects on Obama’s win last night

Last night, as the networks began announcing Obama’s win, I started to sense the uphill battle we will face as Catholics, Christians, and Americans in promoting a culture of life for the next four years.  The Church, in many quarters, has failed to provide the clarion call for that which we must hold dear.  During the campaign, Obama promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law upon reaching the White House.  Should he make good on this promise, the consciences of millions of Americans will be violated – an overreach for which nobody will ever have a mandate.  Lastly, I found it tragically ironic that while we were reflecting, as a nation, on the racial progress represented by the historic election, that roughly one third of our country’s African Americans are not alive to witness it because they have been killed through legal abortion.

               

Two African American bishops and abortion

An interesting juxtaposition emerged this week from the statements of two African American bishops on the abortion issue. First, Bishop Martin Holley, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, released a statement last week responding to a Guttmacher Institute (named for Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society) survey which found black women in the U.S. abort pregnancies at a rate five times that of white women.

Bishop Holley, who is chair of the African American Subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), wrote,

As an African American, I am saddened by evidence that Black women continue to be targeted by the abortion industry. The loss of any child from abortion is a tragedy, but we must ask: Why are minority children being aborted at such disproportionate rates?

Many African Americans are not aware that since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, the number one cause of death in the African American community has been abortion. We have lost over 13 million lives. To put that in   perspective, it is one third of our present Black population. Since 1973, twice as many Black Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

These fact are particularly alarming given the roots of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s number one abortion provider, which sprung from the American Eugenics Movement in the early 20th Century. Eugenicists, like the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, sought to prevent the procreation of “unfit” and “undesirable” elements of society, which for these racists, included African Americans and immigrants.

Although most Americans have forgotten the sinister aims of the birth control and abortion movements, the Guttmacher study – the research arm of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood – reveals they are succeeding in their mission of “racial betterment.”

Counseling the African American community, Bishop Holley writes further, “our legitimate commitment to other social concerns must not push the primary moral issue of abortion onto the back burner. It clearly must be at the heart and center of our discussion of the survival of African American people.

Compare this very clear statement about the urgency with which Catholics must address the issue of legalized abortion in the United States with remarks made by Bishop Terry Steib of Memphis, who stated “we [Catholics] cannot be a one issue people.” This statement was heralded by the liberal newspaper the National Catholic Reporter as a rejection of the teaching promoted by many American bishops that faithful Catholics must not vote for pro-abortion candidates.

However, a careful reading of Bishop Steib’s remarks reveals his point is more nuanced than the Reporter and other liberal Catholic groups would like. One might interpret his statement is intended to counsel black Catholics against voting for Sen. Barack Obama simply because he is black. For example, Bishop Steib writes,

“according to our Holy Father, we disciples of Jesus cannot remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice; this means that we must be part of the game. However, politics is not just a game; it is instead a part of the commonwealth of our lives…But if we are to be involved in the political process by voting, then we must have formed our consciences well.”

Bishop Steib further cautions that “it is much easier to choose because of personality rather than the content of character. It is easier to say ‘I just like him or her; he or she is one of us’ rather than to ponder, reflect, and pray for our choice prudently.”

Quoting the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document, he advises the faithful that

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Catholics believe abortion to be a fundamental moral evil and Sen. Obama has promised to make abortion a civil right, if elected, and expand access to abortions. Is Sen. McCain completely in line with all Church teachings? Clearly not, but he does support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states.

Eric writes a column for the Washington, D.C. version of Examiner.com to read his other writing, visit http://www.examiner.com/x-970-DC-Catholic-Examiner.

               

A tale of two polls

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

With every vote being so crucial in this election, it’s no wonder there’s great interest in the minds of this nation’s 67 million Catholics and how they plan on voting on November 4.  Swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida have significant Catholic populations and it is quite likely that Catholics may decide who occupies the White House and the Capitol in January.  For decades, American Catholics were considered a solid  part of the Democrats’ base, but as they increasingly become the “party of death,” Catholics are rethinking this relationship.

Since it is the time in our nation’s life when a new poll du jour is touted by this organization or another while pundits say polls don’t matter and the media report on them as though it were our national fever, it goes without saying these polls have a thing or two to say about Catholic life in America.  Just like those talking heads who are the meteorologists of our Republic, I think we should heed the results with skepticism – especially with regards to what they say about Catholics.  A couple of polls announced in the last week highlight the difference between those individuals who understand Catholics and ask the right questions and those who don’t have a clue.

According to the results of a poll released last week, sponsored by Faith in Public Life, “younger Catholics more strongly support Obama, abortion rights, and more active government than older Catholics.”  The data claims that 60% of Catholics between the ages of 18 and 34 say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.  Perhaps even more shocking is this survey found 50% of older Catholics hold a similar view.

I was immediately skeptical of this survey given my own experience as a young Catholic.  Maybe it’s just me, but the Catholics I know, especially the younger ones, are more fervent in Faith and committed to Church teachings than ever before.  Just take a look at the types of young men entering the seminaries.  They are increasingly more conservative, more traditional, and more faithful.

With this skepticism, I decided to take a look at the actual questions the survey asked.  First of all, the poll asks respondents to self identify with a particular religious group, and 23% of the young adults surveyed identified as Catholics.  This is all well and good, but being Catholic means more than calling yourself such.  There are seven precepts of the Church every Catholic must follow including weekly Mass attendance.

As the Catechism says, these are obligatory laws “meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.”  So a natural follow up question to anyone who calls themselves Catholic is, “How often do you go to Mass?”  The Faith in Public Life survey doesn’t ask this question, but it did find that 35% of all young adults polled (not just Catholics) attend “religious services” at least once a week.

Unfortunately, the organization that put this poll together and the media that takes it seriously are more interested in showing how self-identified Catholics reject Church teachings than they are interested in finding out the opinions of faithful, practicing Catholics.

The Faith and American Politics Survey asked those who attend “religious services” once a month if the clergy at the respondent’s place of worship ever speak out about the issue of abortion.  44% of young adults (aged 18-34) said their clergy had spoken out against keeping abortion legal.  Additionally, 25% also said their religious beliefs had the biggest influence on their thoughts on the issue of abortion.

Yesterday [today], a new poll about Catholics and issues important to them was released by people who “get it.”  Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, held a press conference from Rome and Washington’s National Press Club, where he announced the results of the national poll, Moral Issues and Catholic Voters, commissioned by the K of C.

Mr. Anderson stressed the fact that although the economy is the issue at the forefront of everyone’s mind (57% of registered voters and 60% of practicing Catholics say this is the number one issue of the election),  voters prefer a candidate who shares their values.

The two main issues addressed in the survey were abortion and same-sex “marriage” and how average Catholics feel about these moral questions.  An important conclusion is the surprising consensus among Americans about abortion.  Speaking from Rome, Mr. Anderson said the labels of pro-choice or pro-life are no longer adequate and do a disservice to the overall debate because the phrases “magnify division.”

For example, 44% of Americans describe themselves as pro-life and 50% say they are pro-choice, but when asked about the abortion issue in more precise terms, an important concept emerges – 84% of Americans believe abortion should be significantly restricted.  This sentiment flies in the face of Roe v. Wade which currently makes abortion legal during all nine months of pregnancy.

The thing that sets this poll apart from the Faith and American Politics Survey is the fact the Knights of Columbus know what it means to be Catholic.  During today’s press conference, Mr. Anderson cautioned the media, pollsters, and pundits that Catholics are not a “monolithic voting bloc” and are distinguished by two sub-groups, practicing Catholics, which this survey identified as those who attend Mass at least once a month (which I think is pretty weak since Catholics are expected to go at least once a week), and non-practicing Catholics, those who were raised Catholics and for whatever reason have fallen away from the Church, and thus, her teaching.

The Moral Issues and Catholic Voters poll found a distinct difference between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.  46% of non-practicing Catholics, for example, believe same-sex couples should be allowed to legally “marry,” compared to only 22% of practicing Catholics.  The differences, I suspect, would be much different if practicing Catholics were considered to be those who abide by the Church’s precept of weekly attendance at Mass.

Who would practicing Catholic voters choose in the McCain-Obama match up?  The answer is unknown since the Knights of Columbus decided not to ask partisan questions in their poll.  One thing is for certain, though – this will be an historic election for Catholic voters.

By Eric Wilson.

Read other articles by Eric Wilson at www.examiner.com.

               

Is Abortion a “Constitutional Right” worthy of tax money?

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

By now, there should be little doubt that the Democratic party is committed to protecting a woman’s so-called right to choose an abortion.  This is a policy supported by the highest levels of the party as evidenced in the remarks of Sen. Biden and Speaker Pelosi. Sen. Obama has stated his support for the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and legislation to protect babies who survived botched abortions.

Unfortunately, Democrats have given even greater cause for those who support life to be afraid of the change they promise. As others have pointed out, the Democrats are no longer committed to keeping abortions rare as has been their previous position.  Adding insult to injury, the Democratic Party has nailed another little noticed plank in its platform (as it did in 2004 and 2000) that goes beyond their “strong” and “unequivocal” support for Rove V. Wade and their claim that “safe” and legal abortion is a fundamental right like those guaranteed in our Constitution.

According to the platform adopted just last month at their convention, Democrats support “a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” The phrase, “regardless of ability to pay” frequently comes up in discussions about the “right” to health care.  This deception should remind us there’s no such thing as a free lunch.  Obviously, someone always has to pay and in this case it will be American taxpayers’ expense.

It goes without saying that if Democrats are successful in advancing legislation to provide abortions at taxpayer expense it will constitute a tremendous violation of conscience.  Legal, on-demand abortion is already a horrible reality, but forcing millions of Americans who oppose the practice on strict religious and personal grounds to fund its expansion would be nothing short of tyrannical.

If, as Democrats argue, abortion is a right, like the right to freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms, it is unique among Constitutional rights in its guarantee, regardless of ability to pay.  Imagine saying, we affirm our unwavering support of individuals’ right to worship as they choose, regardless of ability to pay.  Or worse, we unequivocally support an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, regardless of ability to pay.

The Constitution recognizes the rights of individuals that come from their Creator.  It does not guarantee that these rights will be fully funded.  I have the right to worship as I please, but American taxpayers aren’t on the hook for paying for my priest’s salary or the electric bill for the Church.  Similarly, if I weren’t a resident of the District of Columbia, I would have the right to own a handgun, but the American taxpayers don’t buy me ammo.

I think it’s safe to say the Democrats’ claim that women have a “right” to a “safe” and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, fails the duck test.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck.  This so-called “right” to an abortion bears no similarity to any of our other Constitutional rights and common sense should tell us that Democrats are altogether wrong about their plan to pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars.