George Weigel On Notre Dame & Obama

The University of Notre Dame invited President {cringe} Obama to deliver the commencement speech this year, setting off a firestorm of debate among Catholics around the country. Why? Because, as I pointed out during last year's campaign, Obama is easily the most far-left pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of the president, much less gain it.

In a published couple of short essays taking the pro- and con-invite positions, Pepperdine professor Doug Kmiec and orthodoxy champion/author George Weigel each wrote their thoughts on the invitation. I found Kmiec's to be surprisingly shallow considering his status. His main points were that it's not right to bring politics into commencement speeches (ridiculous since the objections are on moral, not explicitly political, grounds), and that Obama was just being "pragmatic," since not everyone agrees with the Catholic positions on such matters (apparently the fact of Notre Dame being a Catholic institution did not weigh on Kmiec's mind).

Weigel's piece was eloquent, as expected, and right to the point. To the question of "what's all the fuss?" Weigel lays it out plainly in a single paragraph:

Since Inauguration Day, Obama has made several judgment calls that render Notre Dame's invitation little short of incomprehensible. The president has put the taxpayers of the United States back into the business of paying for abortions abroad. He has expanded federal funding for embryo-destructive stem-cell research and defended that position in a speech that was a parody of intellectually serious moral reasoning. The Obama administration threatens to reverse federal regulations that protect the conscience rights of Catholic and other pro-life health-care professionals. And the administration has not lifted a finger to keep its congressional and teachers' union allies from snatching tuition vouchers out of the hands of poor inner-city children who want to attend Catholic schools in the nation's capital. How any of this, much less the sum total of it, constitutes a set of decisions Notre Dame believes worth emulating is not, to put it gently, easy to understand.

The pieces are short enough to read both. The fact that there's a public controversy at all, frankly, makes me very happy. I recall Notre Dame and several other nominally Catholic universities hosting "The Vagina Monologues," a disgusting one-woman show with sexually explicit monologues and sinful themes, and nary a word was spoken in outcry, except by the Cardinal Newman Society.

Where was everyone besides the Newman Society last month when Georgetown University (another nominally Catholic institution of higher learning) hosted "Sex Week"? One of Georgetown's guests was a porn director speaking on "Relationships Beyond Monogamy." This director had also authored a book entitled, "True Lust: Adventures in Sex, Porn and Perversion." Is this the current state of Catholic universities? If so, is it any surprise Notre Dame would invite Obama, who has already - in under two months in office - taken concrete steps to significantly increase the number of abortions in the world?

The debate is long overdue. The leftists and their disgusting and evil ideals need to be confronted and booted out of America's Catholic colleges. That they've made it this far is remarkable and sad.

Dems Lure AIG Into Contract, Then Bash Them With It

Before the election everyone said the liberals would over-reach, like they always do when they get into power, and I guess I believed it but couldn't really fathom how fast or how far they would do so. Well it turns out we didn't have to wait very long to find out, did we?

This AIG bonus scandal, not a huge deal in my eyes, though annoying, has highlighted for me just how incompetent the lawmakers in Washington are. I should have figured this out when Bush was still in office late last year, as he led the charge to rapidly approve $700 billion in TARP funds ("Troubled Asset Recovery...") so the feds could forcefully back-up all the bad mortgage assets that so many investors had on their books. A decent idea on its face, considering the financial crisis's causes. However, in about one month's time, the TARP fund became the Slush fund, with lawmakers tapping it to bail out other corporate entities like the car companies (NOT a decent idea by any stretch) and others.

Not satisfied with that idiocy, President Obama got inaugurated and promptly started working hard to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative, leading the Democrat congress to approve all kinds of borrow-and-spend measures that raise the annual federal deficit (not the debt, the deficit) to something like $1.75 trillion. They approved this 1000-page bill about 12 hours after having received it, so obviously no one had actually read it. How we will ever pay for this without quintupling the inflation rate, I have no idea.

In the midst of all this, including more federal bailouts of large companies that somehow got "too big to fail" status, the feds bought over 80% of American International Group, AIG, with bailout "white knight" -type funding of over $182 billion. Put aside the fact that it is a horrible idea to have the federal government owning stakes in private companies. This is a controlling stake of a teetering-on-the-edge company that does business all over the world in many industries. And they are doing similar things with many other companies like this. Does the word "communism" mean anything to you?

As they were lavishing dollars on AIG, they put together a contract, negotiated and signed by the feds and by AIG executives, that provided the conditions for the company getting the money. During negotiations, AIG agreed to accept limits on executive compensation that the feds wanted. However, the Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, inserted a paragraph that stated that these limits would not apply to any compensation (including bonuses) that had been contractually agreed-on before February 11th (Dodd, by the way, turns out to be the most heavily-paid senator by AIG during campaign season). Well AIG had agreed to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses some time ago. And after they got the bailout money, they made good on that promise.

Well once the public got wind of these bonuses, paid out by a company on the federal welfare wagon to a handful of executives whose big success had been to drive the company they'd been running into the ground, they were rightly very angry. They began to ask, "how did they think they could do such a thing?" and reporters quickly found the loophole that Dodd had put in there. Of course, it didn't have his name on it, and so when reporters started questioning him about it, he denied knowing anything about it (making him a liar). Eventually he 'fessed up and claimed that, "the administration" made him do it. What a bonehead!

At this point the congress and the White House went into full-fledged panic/defense mode. First they had denied knowing anything about it, then they admitted they'd known about it but pointed fingers at others. Finally, after having been backed into a corner, they responded with, "the taxpayers want justice, and we're here to give it to them." So they did what they could, working out a bill that levies a 90% excise tax on a very specific group of people - executives at companies that have received bailout money - on income they make over $250,000. Rather than be apalled and embarrassed at this ridiculous and evil piece of legislation that specifically targets a certain class of private citizens, taking away almost all of the money they earn, Rep Barney Frank, co-contributor to the financial crisis meltdown, said he expected the states and local governments to take care of the remaining 10%. He was proud of this disgusting legislation!!

Look, when the American federal government starts taxing people at a 90% rate, it is time to step back and say, "Whoa!! Hold on a minute; what are we doing, here?" It goes against everything we, as a capitalist nation, should stand for.


Secondly, the only reason they're doing this at all is because they were so incompetent the first time around, agreeing to allow the bonuses to begin with. Had they done their jobs right the first time, they wouldn't have to be meeting, discussing how to get it back. Dodd never would have written that loophole into the bill in the first place, and/or others would have had time (more than 12 hours) to actually read the bill before voting "yes" on it, would have noticed this provision and excised it.

Obama's head of the Council on Economic Development, a lifelong academic (big surprise) said on Fox News Sunday that this never would have happened had we had "a judge" in place that could have nixed the bonuses so we didn't have to come up with this punitive retroactive confiscation - sorry, tax - that was her solution. Along with a whole host of other idiotic things she said on the program, this one statement is an obvious cover for Senator Dodd. What she should have said was that, had they known they were going to get caught specifically allowing these bonuses, and that the public would be really upset about them, they never would have allowed Dodd to add that paragraph into the agreement in the first place. So they miscalculated politically, assuming no one would notice or care, but wound up getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Disgusting.

Remember "disgusting" every time you see a Democrat on a news show rambling on about how offended he/she is by the whole AIG scandal, demonizing their management and advocating such bills as this unconstitutional 90% tax. These idiots wrote it into the agreement, got caught after the money went out, and now are on this completely bogus crusade on behalf of the taxpayers to get it back any way they can. Disgusting.

An Open Letter to Leonard Pitts

After reading a column by Leonard Pitts in today's paper, I emailed him this response.

Your column this morning was ridiculous and offensive.  Michael Steele should have apologized to Rush, because his performance on D.L. Hughley's show was pathetic and disgusting.  I notice, by the way, you didn't mention Hughley's "Nazi" remark that Steele said nothing about.  This is because it goes against your thesis that the GOP is run by "angry white men" in the south.  "Culturally intolerant, intellectually incoherent, perpetually outraged and willfully ignorant," is how you described them today.  I don't recall any comments like the "Nazi" comment airing on Fox News recently.  And yet no Democrats running for president last year would have anything to do with Fox, while the Republicans were happy to meet with CNN.  Also, no outrage from these "angry white men" at CNN for airing the "Nazi" comment, nor from you.  You are all a bunch of obnoxious hypocrites.

The simple fact is that Rush Limbaugh is more recognizable and popular than Michael Steele right now.  Conservatives didn't have a man in the game in last year's election, and now the government is tilting further and further to the left.  Limbaugh, in his CPAC speech - which again you don't quote or refer to in any way - said what conservatives have been wanting their leaders to say for years.  In fact, we're still waiting.  Steele certainly didn't step up to the challenge.  I can't think of a single serious point Rush made in his speech that was offensive or "ugly" or "incendiary."  Yet, when confronted by Hughley, the leader of the GOP basically laid down and admitted that Rush's speech was disgusting, and that the Republican party, as evidenced by last year's convention, looked like the Nazi party ("what made it look like that" would have been a nice place to start asking questions of Hughley).

You go on to say that "the GOP has reliably been able to woo [social conservatives] by demonizing gays, people of color, Muslims, feminists and anyone else who did not fit their white picket fence fantasies.  But...that won't work quite as well in the future."  Of course you offer no evidence of any of these offensive assertions, and in any event your idea of "demonizing," I'm certain, means nothing more than "disagreeing with."  But liberals love to make emotional arguments with no basis in actual fact and no logical standing, and this is just another example of that.  When you cannot argue on the facts, you resort to ad-hominem attacks to put your opponent on defense.  It is an intellectually dishonest way to debate and shows nothing more than that you have no more brainpower than a teenager who is good at insulting people.

The idea that the GOP should listen to a left wing loony tune like you, Pitts, about how to repair the party and bring it back to prominence is laughable.  In my opinion, that is what has brought them to where we are now.  In short, you can't out-liberal the liberals, and yet that is what many elected Republicans have been doing.  The liberal media last year rooted for the liberal McCain until he got the nomination, then they kicked him to the curb and rooted for the newer and shinier Barack Obama until he won the presidency.  They constantly apply a double-standard in their coverage of liberal and conservative candidates, showing obvious partiality to the former and dislike of the latter.  If the media would honestly and fairly portray both sides, left and right, as they deserve to be portrayed, comments like Rush Limbaugh's would be discussed openly rather than shouted down.  Those who dared to agree with him would not be demonized in the media, but interviewed and debated with.

Sadly, that kind of balance exists, as far as I can tell, only on Fox.  And, no surprise, it's where democratic candidates fear to tread.  So we wind up with this political system that even you admit is unbalanced and getting out of control.  In short, Mr. Pitts, if you are serious about wanting the political landscape to be more balanced (taking you at your word that you do), then work harder to get liberal candidates to engage in serious interviews and debates with people who disagree (respectfully) with them.  That, along with the sending of a strong and consistent conservative message, not the liberalization of the GOP as you advocate, is the key to conservatives winning more elections and balancing out the system.

Obama Brings Back Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I read an AP article this afternoon that says President Obama, making good on yet another liberal campaign promise (are you listening, you moderates who voted for him?), will lift the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research on Monday. What's more, he's proud to do so, and will no doubt say as much when he signs the order publicly. The AP article, as expected from the liberal media, highlights the pro-research position and effectively ridicules the pro-life one.

Background

To recap the controversy, which hasn't really been in the news the last few years thanks to President Bush, researchers have been experimenting with a type of cell called "stem cells" for many years, now.  They have learned to use this research to treat a variety of diseases and conditions.  This is great news and a real credit to scientific research.  However, at some point researchers began to develop a particular interest in stem cells coming out of human embryos.  They developed this interest because unlike the other stem cells that had produced so many scientific gains, embryonic stem cells had the ability to morph into other types of cells, so researchers believe they could explore this ability and develop even more cures if they could harness it.  In years of trying they have not produced a single success with this line of research, but they are hopeful nonetheless, and continue.

The problem is that in order to harvest these stem cells, the researchers must kill the embryos in the process.  This is obviously a problem for Christians because we believe that human life begins at conception.  It is not disputed that an embryo is human life.  Therefore, in the pursuit of scientific research, we understand what researchers are doing is killing innocent and defenseless human beings in order to harvest their cells.  Human life is sacred and must be protected, thus there is a great deal of opposition throughout the world, in religious circles, against embryonic stem cell research.  Many (most?) scientists involved in the research, not surprisingly, brush off and, in fact, insult this opposition, saying that the almighty research must proceed regardless of the destruction of said embryos.

There are two additional twists:  Firstly, a couple of years ago it was announced that researchers had discovered a way to take ordinary stem cells and "regress" them back to the equivalent of embryonic stem cells, complete with ability to morph into other cells.  This was a huge breakthrough that the media barely noticed.  It meant that there was no need to continue research on "real" embryonic stem cells since an endless supply could now be made available without any killing of embryos.

You would think the arguments would end there, since everybody apparently wins: Embryos get to live; scientists get to do research; we get to benefit from such research.  Alas, this has not been the case.  Why?  Who knows.  I can't for the life of me understand, outside of simple hatred for Christians, why people would willfully continue the practice of using live human embryos as fertilizer for research when other totally safe and sound methods are available.

What President Bush did was to say that while he was opposed to this type of research, it was not within his power to stop it altogether, so he stopped new federal funding of it instead.  Researchers could continue to get private donations and funding, but the government was out of it.  He also limited the research to lines of embryos that were in existence at that time, but no others.  I believe this was also related to the federal funding.  That is, no federal funding for new lines of embryos.

By the way, the reason we have these embryos in the first place, stored frozen, is because couples go to have in-vitro fertilization done, contributing sperm and eggs.  Doctors put the two together to make embryos, then feed the woman fertility drugs and implant a number of the embryos in her womb hoping one or more will "take" and she will eventually deliver a child.  Because the process is expensive, they cut costs by doing all their fertilization at the same time, storing the "extra" embryos to use with the woman later in case the batch they're working with does not produce children.  If that first batch does produce children, or if the couple runs out of money or decides not to continue, they have a real problem on their hands, morally speaking.  They have live human embryos that they've produced, waiting for a womb to grow up in.  What to do with them?  It is these embryos that researchers use for their experiments, extracting the cells they want and killing the embryo.

Back to Today's News

What President Obama {cringe} has done is to reverse President Bush's executive order, so that federal dollars can now be used to fund embryonic stem cell research again.  Atheists - and those Christians who live like atheists - think this is great because some valuable research will get done.  Religious people by and large think it's horrible because even more children will now be murdered in the name of Science.

I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.

Vindicated?  Why would you feel vindicated?  People still think you and your procedures are despicable.  President Obama reversing President Bush on a policy issue doesn't make what you do any more legitimate.  If your research was half as good as you think it is, or showed anything of the promise you foresee, you should have had no trouble attracting private donations all these years.  Instead you rely on the liberals in Congress to vote you all kinds of funding because you're too lazy or incompetent to get it from private citizens or groups that share your viewpoint.

Obama said he would do this on the campaign trail last year, so who can blame him for keeping his promise?  Listen to the rhetoric:

"I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

I see, so if everyone else is doing something immoral then we should, too, so we don't get left behind? Why aren't we having our pharmaceutical companies, among the world's greatest, producing high-quality opium, marijuana, and cocaine? Aren't we getting "left behind" in that arena, too?

He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

What a sick joke that is. "Conducted ethically?"  What exactly does that even mean?  We're gonna kill 'em, but we'll make sure we kill 'em quick and painlessly?  This is just one example of Obama using a lot of pretty-sounding words to say absolutely nothing.  He is practiced at hypnotizing his audience so that they think he's saying things they agree with.

Here is one researcher whose opinion is one we hear quite often:

"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science."

By using the term "ideology" in place of "morality," the scientist (read: one who elevates Science above all else) is sneaking around the crux of the issue.  By reducing the opposition to mere "ideology" he is saying it is the equivalent of an opinion, and nothing more.  This is very different from what it really is, which is our society's understanding of morality.  In truth, we object to this type of research because it is immoral.  So the questions we want addressed are twofold:  1) Is it immoral to do this, and 2) If it is immoral, should we proceed anyway?

Supporters of this type of research will inevitably fall into one of those two categories (those who answer "no" to the first question, or those who answer "yes" to the second).  Yet they never argue from where they stand.  What they do, in typical liberal fashion, is make an impassioned emotional argument in favor of their position, while ignoring the other side's legitimate concerns, and demonizing their opponents in the process (they often use very foul language, too, another trademark of the left).  Here is one example, taken from the comments below the AP article:

It’s about time this was done. I couldn’t believe Bush had so many irrational, illogical, and foolish policies. It’s not even human life that’s being experimented on. These conservatives should get out of the 18th and 19th centuries and get into the 21st century like the rest of the world. Instead of listening to some clergyman in a church who knows nothing about reason, rationality, or science, why not listen to the educated scientific community? He should’ve done that before making ridiculous bans/policies that impeded and prevented advances – advances that will eventually create treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases and illnesses. It’s no different than [producing a bowel movement] and experimenting on that. They were going to be destroyed anyways (sic).

A real role model, this commenter.  Let's break it down:  "Bush was an idiot."  Gotta start there, right?  I mean, what liberal rant wouldn't?  "It's not human life; it's the equivalent of human waste." Really?  And on what basis does that opinion rest on?  Does it have human DNA?  Is it living?  Was it produced by human beings?  Will it eventually grow into a larger human being?  If you answer "yes" to all these questions, then how can you make such a ridiculous statement as "it's not human?"

Continuing, "don't listen to religious leaders. They don't know anything about reason, rationality, or science."  Really?? History is saturated with people who were devout Christians, many were even priests, and God-believing scientists are at the forefront of the Intelligent Design movement today, which is based in reason, not in faith.  Read the chapter in "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" that talks about science, then tell me again how religious people have no reason.  While you're at it, convince us that you know anything about objective morality, much less faith.  Religious people have a far more balanced understanding of the world than atheists or agnostics do.

The final point the commenter makes is a very-often made one:  Some day this research will save lives and cure things like Parkinson's disease, and fix spinal cord injuries.  Again, sell on emotion.  This is the liberal way.  Disregard the costs, focus only on the benefits.  Meaning: forget about the embryos/children that will be destroyed as a result of the research.  Focus instead on the great things that will come about as a result of it.  I see this as a purely Satanic ploy.  This is how the Devil gets his foot in the door - he either distracts you with the "prize" so you don't notice the harm, or he gets you thinking that the ends justify the means.  This is something to be guarded against.

The above commenter is very typical of liberal opinion on this subject.  You do not have to look far to find comments just like these.  It's an example of what happens when you remove God from your life, and in this case what can happen when you remove God and/or moral decision-making from society.  It's horrible and must be condemned.