-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
A Further Perspective
Obama’s Dupes: The President’s Pro-Life Catholic Suckers
A wake-up call for Kathy Dahlkemper and Democrats for Life.
(Page 2 of 2)
Again, why would that surprise anyone?
All of this makes perfect sense. Barack Obama is, above all, first and foremost, a radical, pro-abortion ideologue. He could care less about the “public policy perspective” and alienating Catholic voters. This is where Obama’s heart is: from public funding of Planned Parenthood to embryo destruction to abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals.
As I write, the latest statement from Kristen Day and Democrats for Life is that they are “deeply disappointed” in the actions of President Obama. They urge Obama to “reconsider.”
Sure, good luck.
It’s a shame, a crying shame, that it takes this much for pro-life Democrats to learn. Ronald Reagan famously said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Maybe it’s time that Democrats for Life leave the Democratic Party — for life.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/14/obamas-dupes-the-presidents-pr
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 2.14.12 @ 6:24AM
" The U.S. bishops’ letter of October 8 ,2009 states:
“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.
No current bill meets this test…. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”
For the full text of this letter and more information on proposed legislation and the bishops’ advocacy for authentic health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.
Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final bills for floor consideration. Please contact your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them."
Pax78| 2.14.12 @ 9:16AM
There is no "fixing" Obamacare. Contact your representatives and demand repeal.
Purp| 2.14.12 @ 1:27PM
I am tired of hearing the "Bishops" meddling in governmental affairs. The First Amendment was not meant to protect religion from government, but the other way around. Religion is not logical, it is based on belief and faith and there is no reasoning with beliefs. You do or you don't believe something. The enemy of the state can definitely be religion and you can see that around the world examples being in Islamic Iran, Hamas in Gaza and so on. The pilgrims left England to avoid religious persecution, but the Founders of the Constitution over 100 years later were more concerned with religious control of the state than fear of the state interferring with religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of ... " - Tell me how providing contraception services violates a Bishop's religious freedom or any person for that matter? What of all the non-followers of Church doctrine that do want contraceptive services? They are singled out to be treated separately, because of religion? THAT violates the separation of Church and State.
This is just the slippery slope argument that is used so often - give an inch, they'll take a mile - it's political, not religious in nature and much ado about nothing.
Publius| 2.14.12 @ 2:35PM
The First Amendment was, indeed, intended to protect religion from government; you've even provided an example contradicting yourself. The Pilgrims left because the government would not allow them to practice their religion, demanding that its own be observed. It is, in fact, the government's power that causes tyranny. Sometimes it's a result of governmnet colluding with religion, sometimes it's facism. In the case of Obama, it's humanism - a strange term to be sure when an obvious goal is the destruction of human life.
At what point in the lives of the Bishops do you propose that they lost their First Amendment right to speak freely? Or to petition their government for a redress of grievances?
How does the President's edict contradict the First Amendment? Do you believe that Catholics are prohibited from exercising their religion when they are forced to do something that directly contradicts it?
Indeed, we've given Obama an inch with the PPACA and now he is attempting to take a mile.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 3:57PM
Publius, You are exactly correct. The Puritans that settled in Plymouth and MA Bay colony, Quakers in PA, Catholics in MD all fled due to the persecution by the Anglicans starting with Henry VIII, Cromwell's Puritan dictatorship, James II the Catholic King and other religious persecutions.
Perp apparently knows nothing of the "Test Acts" and the "Popery Laws." Subjects were forced to pay tithes to Churches they did not belong.
The purpose of the First Amendment is that the "central" government was not allowed to set up an official "American" approved religion. The individual colonies, and in the early stages the states, did have state religions and discriminated against other religious sects.
Perp is a half-educated troll just trying to piss people off for his MoveOn minimum wage pay. You will never convince a "true believer" of socialism anything that contradicts what his handlers have indoctrinated in his education camp.
fckewe| 2.14.12 @ 4:52PM
FINE! Spend you breath yaking about fetal rights. As
if they have any...!!!
Nutball politics = the few, screaming louder than the many, and claiming the "I don't care as long as the 'Bama is one term.'
GIVE ME a working plan!!!
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.14.12 @ 6:44PM
"I am a 1%er, in Mensa" (fckewe 1/16)
"Babies cry, laugh, poop and eat and breath. If it is NOT doing these acts, it is just a scab, a snot bubble" (fckewe 1/19)
"you're MOM teach you that?" (fckewe 1/20)
"You take 2 Viagarrrrrrrrra to day?" (fckewe 2/7)
"in the eraly church is VERY Markist" (fckewe 2/8)
"If OURConstitution works so well, WHY is Roe V Wade and Citizens United decisions based on it so hottly unsatisfactory?" (fckewe 2/9)
"living abortions like YOU walking around and pretending that everything you type is the ruth of Millions of followers" (fckewe 2/12)
"Though shalt not kill (living beings). What if it makes women HAPPY to have sex without fear of pregnancy?" (fckewe 2/13)
~
We are just sheep, and acknowledge that there might be a species communication gap, or that something might be lost in translation, or just that our contempt for sodomizers of sheep is throwing us off, but are you aware that you typed "fetal rights" and not "fecal rights", are you not?
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 6:58PM
fck Ed,
I Bama is two term, he will be your dictator and you will not have any rights.
But your only concerned in making marriage between your sheep and you legally recognized.
Do you put lipstick on your ewe?
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.14.12 @ 8:02PM
Based on eraly reports gleaned briefly to day of sodomized ovines, the following - as we live and hottly breath - is the ruth:
the sodomizers are liberal democrat markists who believe that other people's money and abortion and homosexual unions are unalienable rights endowed to themselves by themselves
the victims of the sodomization are ram lambs
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Exhaustion| 2.14.12 @ 2:51PM
Everyone is tired of having to explain in precise detail why you are such an idiot.
For example:
"It's simple - if you choose any form of birth control, it's your choice...Keep the government out of it by offering it to all and let the person choose, not by cost, but by choice."
(color, favored by idiot pansies)
"Is it OK if I choose an Aston-Martin?"
(reality, making a point)
"I'm sure your free to do so. But if made in the U.S., the automaker must abide by U.S. Labor Laws, period."
(color, favored by idiot pansies)
"I don't mind if Aston-Martin abides by U.S. Labor Laws or not. I'll leave that up to you. I just want you to pay for the car."
(reality, making a point)
"Keep the government out of it by not offering it to any, and let the person choose, as long as any person choosing pays for it themself."
(reality, elaborating the point being made)
"By that logic...you have discriminated against a whole class of people that can't afford [whatever it is that they want]. You are wrong and it is unconstitutional."
(color, favored by idiot pansies)
Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 6:31PM
I want a 7.62 mm Mini-gun, and I want Purp to pay for it. And the ammo for it. I have a right to it.
\snark
irish19| 2.15.12 @ 10:07AM
Me too. It would look great on my deck, and be a wonderful conversation piece.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 9:33PM
I'm more simple. Just a Desert Eagle with the ammo, with purp paying for it. No snark--- I deserve it, so he should pay for it for me, and as a Liberal he has no right to deny me my entitlement.
George S| 2.14.12 @ 3:03PM
You think the Church of England acted on its own? You think the teachings of The Prophet has no influence in Tehran?
An "established" religion -- such as the Church of England -- is one where you are compelled to attend and compelled to support financially. The Church had ecclesiastical courts which sanctioned heresy, lechery, non-attendance, non-payment of tithing, or working on the Sabbath. The Church censored books deemed immoral, and had direct control over education. And no, the Church did not spring up on its own -- it came about as Charles I implemented the Divine Right of Kings, in which absolute rule was conferred by God himself. Hence being the complete opposite of separation of church and state.
That is why the First Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion and then forbids GOVERNMENT (not the church elders) from prohibiting is free exercise. How you can say with a straight face that the FA protects government from religion is beyond me.
This is so simple even a liberal should understand: the Constitution (you know what that is?) does not delegate to the president any powers to compel people to do anything. The office enforces the laws. Requiring religious institutions to act in a way that repulses their conscious is not a power granted to a president but one usurped by a king.
DRed| 2.14.12 @ 4:31PM
Even though I'm a non-believer, my tax dollars go to fund church programs. You oppose that, right?
George S| 2.14.12 @ 5:39PM
I see where you are going but I'm not going to take the bait. Just suffice to say that if a church catches fire or if there is a burglary in progress, the protective services provided to the people by government still applies to houses of worship.
If the government sends tax dollars to churches to operate a shelter, an after-school program or a soup kitchen, it is not establishing a religion. It is funding community services and the church is the vehicle of implementation (who are motivated by faith instead of a union shop agreement).
If the government directs tax dollars to widen a street and build a sewer and water main for a new church, it is simply engaging in economic development and not establishing a religion. I think I clearly defines what established means -- but you are confusing establishment with co-mingling. In other words, tax dollars helping churches DOES NOT FORCE anyone to do what they do not want.
That is reserved for us minions... only Obama is doin' the forcing around here.
DRed| 2.14.12 @ 7:45PM
It allows my money to be given to organizations who discriminate in ways I disagree with. My tax money can be taken from me and given to an organization who can refuse to hire an atheist for his or her belief. Why am I forced to support someone who discriminates against me?
qrstuv| 2.23.12 @ 3:00PM
Indeed why am I forced to support the GM unions, NPR, global warmists at the Federal trough, nanny-statists who disapprove of my choices, and a gazillion other things?!
W| 2.14.12 @ 4:01PM
"The First Amendment was not meant to protect religion from government.."
Purp, you are embarassing yourself, if possible, by your comments. Stop pretending that you know anything about law or the constitution.
How is you idiotic statement consistent with:
"Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise ..."
When it says that government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion that is to protect religion from government.
You are truly dense. If you want contraception go to the drug store and buy it. Nobody is stopping you. The issue here, if you can focus, is whether religious institutions can be forced to pay for them? Now that should not be too difficult for you to understand.
Let's hear your reply. I bet it makes no sense.
Exhaustion| 2.14.12 @ 8:24PM
Please provide the odds on whether the reply will make less sense than:
"I'm sure your free to do so. But if made in the U.S., the automaker must abide by U.S. Labor Laws, period"
in response to an inquiry whether an Aston Martin is acceptable, in response to his statement "Keep the government out of it by offering it to all and let the person choose, not by cost, but by choice."
Dennis Sinclair| 2.15.12 @ 10:00AM
Have you read the Constitution? Or have you taken a Constitutional History course at a government school?
Ted| 2.15.12 @ 1:47PM
"The First Amendment was not meant to protect religion from government, but the other way around."
Once again, you show a curious lack of historical knowledge. In point of fact, the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from Government. And the Catholic Bishops, as well as Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish leaders are not meddling. They are simply exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech in order to make their point in public. Just like you have the right to do.
Richard Baker| 2.14.12 @ 6:37AM
By 'em books and send them to school. Obviously, a pro-abortion Catholic is a contradiction in terms. The Kenyan has played them like a drum and maybe they're either befuddled or as dumb as they seem to appear. Regardless, I agree with Forrest Gump on this bunch.
John Henry| 2.14.12 @ 6:43AM
Vote all Demoncrats out of office. Their platform calls for abortion and sodomy.
Purp| 2.14.12 @ 1:28PM
Vote all Republicants out of office, they never do anything to help the people or the economy - except they help the 1%.
Publius| 2.14.12 @ 2:37PM
As opposed to penalizing 100% of us, as the Democrats do with their inane policies.
Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 6:33PM
All the while supporting the 1% so they can get those donations from them every election year. They may be fools, but they aren't idiots.
Dr. X| 2.14.12 @ 6:38AM
The human capacity for self-deception and cognitive dissonance is boundless.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.14.12 @ 10:55AM
I don't think that's it, Dr. X. I think it's much worse than that. I think that CHRIST said it best (of course) when he said: "What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and lose his Immortal Soul?"
These people are Catholics In Name Only. Christians in name only. They believe in Money and Power. Name ONE Democrat Woman, who doesn't support Abortion on Demand. Name one Man. (And, don't say Bob Casey. He's at the top of the list, of those who have Sold their Souls to the Devil)
Look at Bart Stupak. He could have made of himself, a SYMBOL of Religious Faith. Like Peter and Paul, who knew they were putting their lives at risk, EVERY DAY, yet still went out and Preached the words of JESUS. He chose to "Gain the whole world", instead.
Where is Bart Stupak, now? If he still goes to Church, how does he explain himself? He is getting a little TASTE of his future, right now. He coulda been a Contender. Now, he's just a Bum.
To Mr. Kengor: These people were NOT deceived. That would be impossible. The THING in the Oval Office, voted 3 TIMES, against Money to give Medical Treatment to BABIES that had survived their Abortionist's Knife. He voted to Throw them in a Filthy Storage Room, where they could DIE, Alone, Cold, and in the Dark.
Who, in their right mind, would take the Word of such a Man, about anything.
He is the personification of EVIL, which is why Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Khalid Rashidi are his FRIENDS.
That is why he surrounds himself with Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Maoists, and Anarchists. These are his Czars, of whom, NONE OF THEM could have been Confirmed by the Senate. They are all too Radical, too Extreme, too out of touch with Humanity. They worship at the Alters of the Greatest Mass Murderers of the 20th Century. And, now they work for HIM.
These Creatures are his HAND PICKED Closest Advisers.
You want absolution for Pissing on your Religious Beliefs, and Obligations, because you received a "PROMISE" from this man, with His Record on Human Life?
How Stupid do you think we are?
Purp| 2.14.12 @ 2:02PM
Now you know why the first Amendment is in the Constitution - to protect not only religious freedom but to protect the State from Religion. Case in point Iran, when religion takes precedence over the State. If you don't like a secular nation, then move to a religious nation like Tibet, where the head of state is the Dalai Lama, also the head of their religion.
Publius| 2.14.12 @ 2:38PM
Hold on, Burp - you said above that the First Amendment is not intended to protect religion from governm,ent but that it's the other way around. Which is it? The cynic in me suspects you're merely trying to start an argument.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.14.12 @ 4:10PM
He's a Douche Bag.
Just ignore him.
PURP QUIZ| 2.14.12 @ 5:38PM
True or False:
At the time the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States was ratified, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was John Jay, who along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the authors the Federalist Papers.
True or false:
John Jay, one of three Founding Fathers who authored the Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, stated the following:
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
EXTRA CREDIT| 2.14.12 @ 9:19PM
True or false:
At the time the Constitution of the United States was ratified, 6 of the 13 states had state churches.
True or false:
At the time the Constitution of the United States was ratified, 7 of the 13 states did not have a state church.
Purp`| 2.14.12 @ 9:27PM
Now I know why all you Republicants are unconstitutional!
1.
Trick question, there's no such name as John Jay. Look it up yourself Republicants.
2.
False, due to "Separation of Church and State" in the actual Constitution itself. Look it up yourself Republicants.
3.
Not a T/F question. Answer is 19 you unconstitutional Republicants.
4.
20. You Republicants should learn your math.
This is just what the 1% wants you fool Republicants to think.
Simon Templar| 2.15.12 @ 2:45PM
Purp writes, "False, due to "Separation of Church and State" in the actual Constitution itself. Look it up yourself Republicants."
The constitution contains no such phrase or language. No, you look it up, jackass.
Post Modern Liberalism is truely a mental disorder.
It is not so much that you made an incredible error and have swallowed your liberal programming and historical innacuracies that bother me the most about you useful idiot liberals, it is your unfathomable arrogance. Your blatant disregard for truth is just stunning.
This can only be described as a form of social and mental disorder that manifest in the political realm.
Arguments can be made on all sides of issues and even our founding fathers did not agree on every single point or issue. You are not interested in a debate or reasoned argument, you are interested in spreading chaos, misinformation, falsehoods, and your perversion.
Purp`| 2.15.12 @ 5:44PM
Full disclosure:
Purp` answered the quiz.
Purp` is not Purp.
The purpose for doing so was two-fold; an inkling that random inane answers produced off the cuff without forethought would not be noticably different than the comments Purp has posted over and over and over, and a curiosity about how Purp would respond, may he continue to post here over and over and over.
With gratitude to ST, and apology should he understandably not appreciate the means to an end.
Purp`| 2.16.12 @ 1:13PM
The end of the means; a very brief search:
"Separation of of Church and State dictates . . ." - 7/7/11
"Keep the separation of church and state . . . " -7/15/10
" . . . Christians . . . they never were in politics . . . separation of church and state . . . " - 5/6/10
"The Founders feared religion, they didn't found the country as a Christian . . . " - 4/24/10
Dennis Sinclair| 2.15.12 @ 10:06AM
TLP, Thanks for holding back on what you think. Well said. The willfully blind will have a price to pay.
robbie| 2.15.12 @ 5:21PM
Timothy, I don't always get to read everything on this website, but I have learned to look for your name. Thank you for your penetrating words.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 9:34PM
"Against human stupidity, the Gods themselves, contend in vain."
Appleby| 2.14.12 @ 7:20AM
Last night a sixteen year old boy in my neighbourhood was hit by a train and killed. Despite a vigorous campaign and being told many, many times, he was walking on the train tracks, and the engineer saw earphones jammed in his ears and his head down and his fingers twiddling wildly. The engineer blew the air horn, and Junior did not even flinch. Seconds later the train was upon him.
Junior believed he was invincible and that the warnings and the rules did not apply to him. Today he is dead.
The left wing Catholics who thought the rules didn't apply to them and nobody would ever require them to choose whom they will serve -- and now they are in the corner with all those eyes on them, and it's time to fish or cut bait. The train is coming; the whistle is blowing. Hey, you cafeteria catholics, are you going to get out of the way?
Jacob R| 2.14.12 @ 7:57AM
What a macabre way to try to make a point..or not make a point.
What was your point? That careless people deserve to die horrific deaths?
I'd rather be in heaven with the person who died than miserable on earth with you celebrating someone's tragedy to make myself feel smart!
Nemo| 2.14.12 @ 8:07AM
I musr be really, really dumb. But I can see no word of a person's tragedy being celebrated. Or perhaps you should read Dr Freud on "projection".
Publius| 2.14.12 @ 2:44PM
Appleby is suggesting that actions have consequences and those consequences can be grave. No where do I detect anything but sadness about the boy's demise. As a parent, it doesn't need to be pointed out to me that the death of a child is tragic. Maybe that's the missing common reference, Jacob. Do you really not see that?
numbatdog| 2.14.12 @ 8:57AM
This analogy is perfectly apt. There is an financial express train coming down the tracks towards us and we are so distracted with minor crap we can't see or hear it. Even if Obama throws a bone to the Catholic Church it changes nothing. In 4 more years we will have 20 trillion + of fast rising debt with a ruined economy, outrageous taxes, Obamacare and a huge government to ride herd over you.
Mark Shepler| 2.14.12 @ 6:00PM
I think Appleby makes a very good point for as Dahlkemper's own words tell us, she still hasn't learned a thing, ""I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception," said Dahlkemper." In other words, her complaint, and that of many, many other official Catholics is that THEIR ox is being gored. But she and the others are perfectly cool with the underlying assumptions of Obamacare, and a whole host of "social justice" imperatives leading to it, that it's A-Ok to coerce others.
Another questionable aspect is her objections she took Obama at his word are beyond, and far beneath, disingenous, they are downright unbelivable. To any cognizant adult who's paid attention over the decades, let alone a professional pol, it is not hard to know what the National Dems are likely to do with the power they are pressuring you to grant them. Only a complete fool, naif or liar could protest otherwise.
In short, when you add the two up it's not the coercion and tyranny she, and apparently official Catholocism, objects to it's the coercion of Catholics.
W| 2.14.12 @ 7:49AM
Pelosi,Biden, Stupak, Bob Casey, Sebellieus, and company knew exactly what they were voting for and did it, as did anyone who voted for Obama. Obama was clear about his intentions to "share the wealth" and transform the country.
NHConservative| 2.14.12 @ 8:28AM
Despite their current outrage, the Roman Catholic clergy and hierarchy continue to coddle and 'project good intentions' on all of these aggressively pro-Abortion 'Catholics' - Senator Jeanne 'Never saw a baby that shouldn't be aborted' Shaheen of (disgracefully) NH continues to be best 'buds' with our new Bishop Libasci - there is not a word said to counter or publicly refute her, Pelosi, Biden, Kmiec, Stupak, and all the rest of these shameful purveyors of death. The 'clergy' are willfully ignorant (or shamefully naive) if they believe in the 'good faith' of any of these advocates of abortion.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 9:58AM
NHConservative, "Pro-Abortion Catholic" is an oxymoron. There are socialist that today we call "liberals" who are liberals first and happen to attend or belong to a Catholic Church. But they are not G0d's Children if they violate the Ten Commandments as do Pelosi or Biden.
BTW, I love the White Mountains and crave the "Lobster Trap" lobster stew. And old Bill is a great conservative who introduced me to www.mises.org.
JJ| 2.14.12 @ 8:31PM
I have been telling people that their exist in reality only one Democrat. Everyone else in the party ends up voting the way he tells them to. So a vote for ANY democrat is a vote for Obama.
jaytrain| 2.14.12 @ 10:02AM
Yes indeed!! The bishops brought yhis down on themselves . Thirty years ago when the Kennedys and the Pelosis and Bidens espoused and enabled grave sin , then the bishops should have demanded they adhere to Church teaching or leave the Church . They are neither naive nor ignorant . The bishops were and remain cowards .
W| 2.14.12 @ 1:36PM
Do we really need the bishops or anyone else to say that Pelosi, Kennedy,etc. are not true Catholics? It would have sent a powerful message if some bishops said that. But whenever some did raise the issue, they were attacked by the MSM as mixing religion with politics. Remember JFK had to grovel in front of a Texas Protestant clergy to promise he would not let his Catholic faith affect his duties as president. Catholic polticians routinely state that they won't let their faith "interfere" with their poliltics. Mario Cuomo perfected this. The implication is that their Catholic religion would be inconsistent with the constitution. The MSM expected Catholic Democrats to basically renounce the Catholilc beliefs to remain a Democrat in good standing.
We have cafeteria Catholics, cafeteria Jews, cafeteria Protestants and so on who pick and choose what they like. As Von Mises states there is no "pro abortion Catholic." If that is what you believe, then congratulations you are not a Catholic.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 9:35PM
"Stupak." Never since Commodus was a man so aptly named for his place in history.
martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 8:06AM
I am not a pro-lifer but I am a believer in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At this time Pro-Life and Democrat ( =Socialist ) is an oxymoron.
Again I raise the issue of behind the door threats of one kind or another. Blackmail,physical harm, whatever it takes. If you do not believe Obama is not capable of such behavior you are foolish.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.14.12 @ 8:16AM
I think Ms. Dahlkemper was schooled on that famous road paved with "good intentions" and where it leads to. Does she realize, even now, that she was sucker-punched by the Kenyan?
Anthony| 2.14.12 @ 8:29AM
Yep, Bart Stupid is indeed the poster child for the worthless professional Democrat pol. When not brain dead ideologues, they're as stupid as their R counterparts.
I suspect Stupid was lying to his constituents and knew all along this was the ultimate outcome, as opposed to being the dupe he looks to be.
Well done Bart, either way, Obozo played you for the sucker that you are, which is why you're no longer in congress, thank God.
How are things in the private sector, or did you land a cushy lobbying job in Washington?
You should be working 3rd shift at McDonalds with a brain such as yours.
Indiana Alex| 2.14.12 @ 8:58AM
Um, definately not surprising, but it is also not surprising that the legislation will NOT cut the deficit, you will not get to keep your plan, and may not get to keep your doctor.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, the plan is pretty much what they said it would be, isn't it?
Mildred R Bean| 2.14.12 @ 9:10AM
I really must protest the sexism of this article. To say that Kathy Dahlkemper is pro life is to imply that she is is a total dingbat. That is highly offensive.
No woman, never mind a seasoned politician and college graduate could be that dense. At least I hope so.
Mary| 2.14.12 @ 9:44AM
Mildred, are you at all grateful that your mother didn't kill you while you were in her womb?
Since 1973, approximately 55 million American babies have been killed by legal abortion and denied the blessings of life that you enjoy.
Every mother deserves better than abortion. Every child deserves a chance.
Bruce| 2.14.12 @ 9:10AM
Looks like a lot of Catholic Democrats are wishing they had read the legislation before voting on it. Now that it has passed and they are reaping what they have sown, there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Derek Leaberry| 2.14.12 @ 9:12AM
Until the Roman Catholic church begins excommunicating Catholics who support abortion and homosexual marriage, they can not be taken seriously.
shamful| 2.14.12 @ 9:19AM
If these traitors are so upset why don't they campaign against Obammy? May be not to upset to rattle the applecart?
Bill| 2.14.12 @ 9:21AM
Obama is a MUSLIM and hates Catholic.
Mark MacInnis| 2.14.12 @ 9:22AM
In early 2009, I lamented to my (since deceased) mother that I could not believe that so many catholics, herself included, had voted for Obama since he was obviously going to advance the pro-abortion agenda. She informed me that "Obama promised to be against abortion." Watch, I told her, wait. You will see him reveal his true self on the issue. She told me, bless her, that I was wrong. The President would never go back on his word. My mom died this past August, still believing that Obama care would not provide for government-paid abortions.
Of course, she came by her faith in Democratic presidents honestly...she voted for, and had met, Harry Truman, and still spoke of that day on occasion.
My mom died before having to admit she'd made a mistake in voting for him. I wonder why so MANY of the otherwise sensible people who voted for Obama are so LOATHE to SEE his intransigence and deception and overall unfitness for the office he holds?
In my mother's name, I urge ALL CATHOLIC voters to truly search their conscience before getting back into that voting booth and ask themselves how on earth can they justify to themselves, and to the souls of the aborted children, voting for this man, this sham, this travesty of a president, a second time?
Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 10:06AM
Mark, G0d bless your mother's soul.
But for those that don't get it yet, vote for Obama again in November; and instead of lamenting aborted babies, you will be agonizing over your verdict from the IPAB "Death Panel." What goes around, comes around.
JJ| 2.14.12 @ 8:37PM
My 92 year old mother is a life long Democrat -blue collar factory worker. When she saw her president say that his 87 year old grandmother was too old for hip surgery she was horrified. Her president felt that she was not worth saving. She is now a tea partier.
So this should come as no shock to anyone. Obama showed a disregard for life through his support of letting babies of botched abortions die. He showed his disregard for life with his support of partial-birth abortions. He showed his disregard for life with the death panels in ObamaCare.
Redstateboy| 2.14.12 @ 9:41AM
Hussein's Leftist Radical Socialist Slave (Democrat) Party.. decent, God-fearing, pro-life need not apply.
Jimmy| 2.14.12 @ 9:49AM
I just cannot belive after the past three or so decades anyone would still vote for a democrat. Thank God for stupid people, he sure made enough of them. Eat more peanuts.
Stormy| 2.14.12 @ 9:54AM
Anyone who puts their faith in the words of a politician is doomed to be disappointed and betrayed. Their word is only as good as the politics of the moment require. As regards Barack Obama, anyone alive and aware in 2007 should have known what they would get with an Obama presidency. All you had to do was look at his record and history. If you want to know what a politician is going to do in the future, look at his past, not his words. He can't change his past (unless he is Barack Obama and the press can obliterate it), but he can easily change his words.
Stupak knew that Obama would betray him, but he had no choice but to accept Obamacare and Obama's "word" on abortions. In truth, Stupak and the others did not know what was in Obamacare. As Pelosi said, they had to pass it to see what was in it. You think that they did not at least suspect what was in it?
Melvin| 2.14.12 @ 9:58AM
"As I write, the latest statement from Kristen Day and Democrats for Life is that they are "deeply disappointed" in the actions of President Obama. They urge Obama to "reconsider."
Urge in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.
It is really pathetic to see this all unfold in how really smart people are, "easily duped." I suppose there are exceptions. AZ voters were easily duped into reelecting John McCain when he told them he discovered Conservationism again.
I guess standing there with that pathetic doe eyed duped look upon their faces somehow makes them feel absolved of they're previous actions that is now and forever into the future going to cause this Country a living Obama Hell.
But they're intentions were honorable right?
Blackwatch| 2.14.12 @ 3:26PM
next Stupak, et. al. will have a press conference to express their shock over the gambling taking place in casinos...
Athanasius| 2.14.12 @ 10:39AM
I tried being a pro-life Democrat once, many years ago. I gave it up as an impossibility. Totalitarians insist that you submit completely, body, mind and soul, or you're the enemy.
Melvin| 2.14.12 @ 10:55AM
And the alternative is?
Athanasius| 2.14.12 @ 11:09AM
Stop being a Democrat, of course.
Melvin| 2.14.12 @ 11:21AM
Well said, well said.
Mike Rogers | 2.14.12 @ 11:06AM
They f#
Austin Scott| 2.14.12 @ 12:24PM
"He could care less about the "public policy perspective..." When Grove City professors don't know the difference between "could" and "could not," the war for civilization must be close to over.
Publius| 2.14.12 @ 2:40PM
Or he simply mistyped. I suggest civilization is not endagered by the typo.
Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 12:31PM
Nor only Catholics concerning this issue, but also Jews concering this administration's falsehoods about their foreign policy initiatives [especially those of the middle east which is detrimental to Israel], all consumers and businesses requiring reasonably priced fuel that they refuse to facilitate with restricted oil drilling permits, lawsuits and refusals to support the oil pipeline construction etc. When are people going to use an ounce of common sense and realize that the congressman's shouted wordings were true, in that this administration LIES [ie they don't tell the truth] for political advantage. WAKE UP AMERICA and realize that it's THE DEMOCRATS STUPIDS!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 2:40PM
PS: Here is another example of how Obama/Democrats are screwing Americans. This subversively termed PAYROLL TAX[which is actually the FICA payroll tax, ie SOCIAL SECURITY TAX that funds the system] REDUCTION/EXTENSION [from 6% to 4%] is destroying SOCIAL SECURITY and these asinine Republicans have not called the Democrats out on this bullexcrement. Finally Rush has sadi publically what I've said for months about this situation. Every senior on SS should be outraged and protesting the white house concerning this WEALTH REDISTRIBUTING:
'.....Rush: Ignorance Surrounds Payroll Tax Cut Extension Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:53 PMBy: Amy Woods...The ignorance surrounding the payroll tax cut extension President Barack Obama is pushing is “appalling,” and the measure will gut Social Security, Rush Limbaugh said today on his radio show.“I do not understand why somebody doesn’t characterize this payroll tax cut for what it is — gutting Social Security because it is not being, quote / unquote, paid for,” Limbaugh said. “The Republicans, for as long as I’ve been alive, have been accused of gutting Social Security. Here’s Obama doing it. Obama and the Democrats are actually doing it.”He shamed the GOP for reaching across the aisle and trying to compromise with the Democrats rather than using the payroll tax cut extension against the opposition party.“From a political standpoint, it’s a gold mine here, and they’re not using it,” he said.On the issue of the newly released budget, Limbaugh called the document “outrageous” and “simple irresponsibility.”“If everything happened that Obama wants in this budget, folks, it’s over,” he said. “It may be over anyway, if Obamacare is fully implemented.”...'
Rich D| 2.16.12 @ 10:09PM
This is another in the line of dangerous precedents - disconnecting the contribution (which never goes to the lockbox anyway) from the benefit (which is a Ponzi scheme and not a contract - show me your copy) so that it becomes nothing more than an undisguised wealth-transfer "entitlement" program designed to keep the AARP yappers dependent on the government.
J.C.Eaton| 2.14.12 @ 1:03PM
It is beyond rational dispute to say you can't be an orthodox Christian and an orthodox Democrat, yet you will still hear the sophists say: "I can change the Party....I can do good within the Democrat Party." The sacraments of the secular religion of Liberalism are evil. The entity is larded with evil, and if it is true that "by their deeds you will know them," then THEY are evil.
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.14.12 @ 2:45PM
Would they have been any less "suckers" if they had voted Republican? Republicans positions are no less against the Catholic Church's teachings such as the "Just War Doctrine" and Social Justice. Many staunch Catholic Democrats are pro-life and pro-labor and neither of the two parties can claim to represent them.
W| 2.14.12 @ 4:07PM
The last honest pro life Democrat was Governor Bob Casey of Pa. He was barred from speaking at the 1992 Dem Convention by Bubba/Hillary because of his pro life views.
Can you name any Dem politicians who are pro life and act pro life regarding abortin?
Jmulcahy| 2.14.12 @ 8:57PM
Define social justice. I must have missed that in catechism. Jesus told the wealthy to give their money away; he didn't tell the poor to help themselves to the wealthy's money through taxation.
Also, if they are staunch Catholic Democrats then surely one party does claim to represent them. How important are pro-life issues to them if they support the party that celebrates the killing of the innocent unborn?
Pat| 2.14.12 @ 3:47PM
But didn’t Obama claim this issue was all about “fairness” to women – he swore on his favorite teleprompter that he meant no disrespect to Catholics – he even acknowledged he has friends who happen to be Catholic. This author finds it ironic that Catholics who supported Obama politically are now the victims of his “fairness”. But when it comes to deciding what is fair and what is not, no people on earth are more mentally confused than us Americans.
One famous milestone in America’s fairness schizophrenia occurred on June 13, 1966 – the day the Supreme Court ruled on Ernesto Miranda’s confession. Ever since then the majority of Americans believe it’s “fair” to make the crime victim help pay for the defendants lawyer.
How does the famous mantra go: “if you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you” .. ever wonder who will do the providing? Technically, wouldn’t that mean someone whose wife or daughter was raped will have to help pay for the rapist’s lawyer if he can’t afford one? Well yeah, not to put too fine a point on it, that’s exactly what it means – but only if the victim also pays taxes. Still, someone who viciously mugs you, an honest taxpaying citizen, will receive the benefit of your tax dollars while you get to mull over our strange concepts of fairness from your hospital bed. Although it does seem very unfair to make the victim pay for his attacker’s legal defense, except here in America. Still, after decades of this nonsense we’ve become habitually blasé concerning our crazy notions of fairness.
So, there’s not much irony left in yet another tale of foolish Americans being victimized once again by “fairness” – absurd as these silly notions have become. But when Obama bent Dahlkemper over a table and committed a “fairness” on her gullible from, he didn’t commit an actual crime and at least Dahlkemper won’t have to help pay his lawyer’s invoices.
Minuteman78| 2.14.12 @ 4:49PM
Makes me wonder how many voting blocs Omarxist can thoroughly p*ss off before he's down to double-digit Electoral votes?
Mark MacInnis| 2.14.12 @ 5:17PM
The Catholic church heirarchy needs to stop dealing in euphemisms and veiled consequences for this administration. As in....stop saying "We are disappointed." And start saying. "We will urge our faithful church body to VOTE FOR YOUR OPPONENT." Period. Until they change their rhetoric, their objections will be, as it says in Eccliastes, "dust in the wind."
George S| 2.14.12 @ 6:54PM
Once they do that, they lose their 501 (c) 3 tax status.
Rich D| 2.16.12 @ 10:16PM
That is not a problem, and probably not true. But, they don't need it anyway - the Constitution guarantees that there can be no restriction of political speech and the FREE exercise of religion. Religious institutions are automatically exempt from taxes and contributions to them are also automatically exempt. Even the IRS has issued a statement in this regard. Any church that applies for 501(c)3 status is submitting to caesar what it does not need to.
Eduardo| 2.14.12 @ 5:22PM
Okay, now I am starting to get a little scared about this current culture. Once certain behaviors were utterly condemned by all of society. If the condemnation was not completely sincere, at least lip service was paid to it. But in the last 40 years, we have gradually devolved and been debased as a culture to such a degree that we now embracing profoundly (yes, I'll say it) sinful acts and grant them societal acceptance. What was depraved is now glorified. What scares me is that all of this is seemingly "not so bad" or "no big deal" or actually "good" , "inclusive", and so forth. Those of us who express some moral qualms are either laughed at as superstitious morons or haters, and challenged to explain "how does all of this personally harm you, exactly?" I feel this nonchalance, general indifference and sense of ordinariness of everything that has happened to our culture proves to me that an intellect (yes, an EVIL nonhuman intellect) really is behind all of it. Those of us whose consciences demand that we speak up better do so.
Nite| 2.14.12 @ 9:18PM
Obama has lied to everyone. Members of his own party and certainly to all religious groups, except those groups that are religious in name only, I am referring to pro-choice liberals.
The Halfrican| 2.14.12 @ 10:07PM
The way to stop abortion is to get the lib's against it. The way to do that is to have an abortion clinic announce that they have identified the gay gene and will now be able to abort gay children before birth. Lib's will be forced to admit there is a human in the womb.
Wtih God all things r possible| 2.14.12 @ 11:32PM
Pro-life Democrat
Martian who likes peanut butter
Prairie Jackalope
Anti-corruption Chicago politician
ACLU attorney who loves the United States
Heh heh
jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 1:40AM
What a load of crap. These "pro-life" Democrats don't give a damn about babies, or, they would not have voted for legislation that everyone with an actual brain knew would include taxpayer funded abortions. Being pro-abortion is THE litmus test for being a Democrat. Anyone who believes that there exists a Democrat politician in Washington that is pro-life is a fool. In other words, these Democrats were not duped. They knew full-well what Obama was up to.
Soljerblue| 2.15.12 @ 1:55AM
" I trust that the president will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."
Like P.T. Barnum said -- "there's a sucker born every minute."
Rockerbabe| 2.15.12 @ 10:55AM
Contraception is a part of almost everyone's reproductive healthcare and most women use contraception at some point in their lives. For women, it is important that this be part of the insurance coverage being offered as a benefit of working for any employer.
For men, the little blue pills can be had even without a dx of ED. Yet, no one would ever consider not covering the pills! I can only imagine the ruckus over that! Talk about a dust up!
Healthcare insurance coverage is part of the employment contract for most Americans and almost all expect the benefit to meet their needs and be fair and equitable to all. For women, it seems, so many are willing to accept and force women into an inferior position with regard to benefits - that is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional.
As for changing jobs, well it is illegal to ask a job candidate their religious affiliation and I highly suspect that for a candidate to ask about an employers religious affiliation [which is not always known or readily available] would be the kiss of death for that hopeful employee-to-be.
Asking women to accept an inferior benefits package is unfair, illegal and unconsititutional. The church has a long history of mistreatment of women and their children. To say that discrimination of women is acceptable by a religious institution, is to believe that women are generally inferior and not worthy of serious consideration. All this crap about women and the morality of their choices surrounding reproductive healthcare is just a ruse to deny us our due place in society and the right to be able to make employment choices just as easily as the men.
The church wants to discriminate against women under the disguise of religous intolerance and morality; I high suspect, given the history of the church, that it know either very well.
Simon Templar| 2.15.12 @ 3:05PM
Go away liberal troll. Your arguments are so full of false premises, lies, distortions, historical revisionism, downright falsehoods, and misinformation, I could use it as the basis to write a score of books on the Rhetorical Techniques and False Argumentation of Post Modern Liberalism.
There is so much material there, one does not know where to start.
You love falsehood. It would be a waste of time correcting you.
Ted Nugent summed it up well and very clearly in his response to another liberal on gun control and the second ammendment when he said, "you have two choices, I will make it simple for you. Leave me alone, my second ammendment rights, and my guns or you will find yourself sucking on my machine gun."
There is no room for compromise with you, no debate, no reasoning, and nothing in common.
Truth and Reality| 2.16.12 @ 1:57PM
This hideous creature provides a devastatingly effective argument why government does not belong in the medical insurance industry.
This hideous creature provides convincing evidence this hideous creature is convinced pregnancy is a disease requiring medical treatment.
This hideous creature provides convincing evidence this hideous creature is convinced it is self-evidently false all mean are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights including life and liberty.
This hideous creature provides a devastatingly effective argument why some from among the actions of some from among all men committing these actions have rendered forfeit their own no longer unalienable rights including life and liberty due to these actions.
BullPasture | 2.15.12 @ 11:13AM
Obama is deceiving a lot more than the pro-life democrats. He is using bait and switch to assault everyone's freedom.
http://bullpasturechronicles.b.....r-cud.html
spike59| 2.15.12 @ 2:21PM
These are Cafeteria Catholics
Cafeteria christians don't stand for something
Those who don't stand for something, will fall for anything
Steve Hansmann| 2.16.12 @ 3:59AM
Right. Catholics agree with the writer. And that's why Catholic families are no longer large; two to three kids instead of the eight to twelve when I was a boy 50 years ago. Get a grip, and quite lying for the most despicable of reasons.
Philip Cohen| 2.16.12 @ 3:14PM
Ah, yes, let's send our women back to the backyard abortionists.
Have you self righteous prigs leant nothing from history?
Lesser Of Two Evils| 2.16.12 @ 6:44PM
Better a woman who failed to choose to abstain, who failed to choose to prevent pregnancy, who failed to give up for adoption, who failed due to her own stupidity, than an unborn baby, who is innocent, who is defenseless, who is created equal to every other human to ever exist, if it is required to choose between one or the other.
Rich D| 2.16.12 @ 10:20PM
Sure. They are cheaper in the alley, but you have to step over the doped up progressives and duck the crossfire from the drug negotiators.