have been thinking for some time that the attacks on Governor Sarah Palin are more about the failings of our modern media and its attitude toward women. After all until Palin arrived on the national scene, the symbol of the modern successful woman was Hillary Clinton. The media dismissed Secretary of State Condelesa Rice - after all she is Black and a Republican and worked for that terrible George Bush.

Then along comes this articulate attractive conservative mother with five - count them five - children and a handsome husband who does not seem to mind that his wife is the governor of the state and the media goes absolutely nuts.

First we have the attacks of the angry left-wing nut-job blogosphere. This was followed by the smug condescending look by the mainstream media so perfectly personified in Charles Gibson.

so the attacks and the insults continue.

It is all because she is so pro-life.

So when anyone questions her credentials, ask why they dot not ask the same question of Obama's credentials.
Victor Davis Hanson stated it nicely over at NRO http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=

Kevin Burke also touched upon the reaction that the left to her pro-life stand and wondered if the negative response had to do with post abortion guilt. You can link to his articlehttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA0YjdjZDc2OTVlNmM1YmE1YTY4ODRlYzUzMjc0YTc=

As I see the pettiness with which the press goes after her, I can only think it is attempting to send a message to other women of her character and quality to stay away.

But women like Sarah Palin have been a powerful part of the building and forming of this nation. Whether it was moving from the East Coast to the heartland of America, or taming the West,  American women have always been an example of fearless dedication to the principles of faith, family and freedom. The West would not have become a part of the United States without women settling in the grassslands of Kansas or trekking across the Oregon Trail.

An abiding respect for the dignity of human life, a willingness to sacrifice for the future and the understanding of the sanctity of marriage, all of these values have been nurtured and taught by our mothers. <a href="http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm">These were the same women who denounced abortion as child murder.</a> They would spit on the modern feminists who dare to claim the name.
They were strong human beings and because of their tenacity one could argue that was how the west was finally won.

Unfortunately for the society at large today, there is not the appreciation of the woman who can be strong and yet still appreciate as to the greatest gift her womanhood offers the culture.
Thus the anger is expressed at those who are an example of such a person.
 

I would suggest that Sarah Palin continues in this grand tradition.

I have noticed that there is a move among some disgruntled conservatives who, having failed to advance their choice for president, have decided to encourage voters to choose "none of the above" come Election day. Such action on the part of such voters could prove disastrous for the country and the future of our children and grandchildren. It reminds one of the playground antics of children who having not gotten their way regarding the choice of game have decided to prevent their other classmates from having any fun during recess. Only in the case of this election of 2008, the stakes are much more serious than some hurt feelings.

Barack Obama is probably the most left leaning candidate ever fielded by the Democratic Party in recent history. He is the combination of Al Gore, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis all rolled into one. Actually he makes those fellows seem rather moderate. And we all know their history. McGovern was the first of the anti-war zealots, promoting amnesty and abortion. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, all were left leaning government expansionists. But Obama is a clear cut socialist. His programs are all about taking from one group and giving to another. He is about income redistribution with the government taking its cut and giving that cut to his friends. And I have not even touched upon his willingness to join in on the persistent attack on the family, the unborn, and the institution of marriage. 

John McCain is a political figure who first and foremost loves this country. He loves his family. He believes in family values. He is pro-life. He is the first to admit he is a flawed human being. But who among us has not made mistakes. He has his qualities and his talents that can help this nation navigate through some treacherous waters in a very dangerous world. He is not so taken with himself as his opponent that he does not rely on Almighty God for strength. He is passionate and like many of us, when he is upset, people know it. But think about what we need in a president in this world of global combustibility. We need someone who has been in the fire and did not flinch.

Now to all those die-hard "I don't like John McCain" folks, I will pose this thought. Put aside your current disagreements and work to insure his election. Make sure everyone knows that you are working to elect John McCain.  Make it clear that you are putting aside but not forgetting these issues of concern. However make it clear that your love for the country is more important. Once John McCain is elected, you have a place at the table to discuss your concerns, your fears, your worries. You will have earned a right to claim his attention because you were in the battle. You fought shoulder to shoulder against those who would sell out this nation.

And after November we will still have a lot of work to do. We still have to end abortion. We still have to defend and protect the institution of marriage. We still need to reduce the size and the overreach of government.  We will have the opportunity to support those conservatives who in the future will be the next generation of leadership for this beloved country of ours. We will still have to address the energy crisis and the social security crisis and the border issues. We will still have to re-claim the judiciary from the activist liberal judges who legislate from the bench.

The election of John McCain will allow us to continue our efforts.

But the election of Barack Obama will put the efforts of the last 20 years at risk.

Obama wants to fund abortions with tax dollars and expand the evil reach of Planned Parenthood around the globe.

Obama wants to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and wipe out all state regulations of abortions that have been responsible for the declining abortion rate in this country.

Obama would select pro-abortion activist judges who will codify not only abortion in to law for the next thirty years but also same-sex marriage. Imagine what these judges would do to the freedom of the church to promote justice and preach the gospel.

Look, it does not take a whole lot of brain matter to realize that Obama would damage this nation for more than a few years.

"These are the times that try men's souls," speaks a voice from our past. Are you gong to sit this one out and then complain when those who would radically reconfigure this nation do what they are telling us they will do if put in power? Are you afraid to be that difference you can be? Do you have what it takes to put aside disagreements that can be solved to protect your nation for your children and  their children?

If so, I invite you to participate in this great republic and this electoral process.

Let us show the liberal politicians, the liberal media and the liberal elites what the people can do and what we mean when we pray that God would bless America.

No sooner do raise the prospects of the governor of Alaska being a the subject of consideration as the vice presidential nominee, than we read there is an investigation under way on conflicts and abuse of office charges . At the same time there continues to be a rise in interest in her possible inclusion on the national ticket. Larry Kudlow did an interview published today in which she talked openly about the investigation and the problems in the Republican Party.

So perhaps this current "crisis" will show those looking at her prospects how she will handle the rough and tumble world of Washington.

She took on the Alaska Republican establishment when she ran for governor and it seems there are those trying to keep her from being a consideration.

Watch her stock go up if she handles this "bump" in the right way.

There is an article in today's Washington Times which discusses the prospects of John McCain considering a woman for the vice presidential spot. One candidate that has excited a lot of people throughout the country is Alaska's current governor Sarah Palin. Palin is Alaska's first woman governor - taking office in 2006. She has an interesting biography which you can read here.

So where does she stand on our issues?

She is strongly pro-life. But only is she pro-life in her politics, she lives it. A Mirror of Justice blog cites a Nat Hentoff article that talks about what Governor Palin did when she was told her baby would be Downs Syndrome. The article calls upon John McCain to choose Governor Palin as his vice-president . And there are a lot of blogs talking about her credentials.

My thoughts.

I like the idea.

here are the reasons.

1. Pro-life commitment. As a women no one from the other side could touch her on the subject. She has lived through a difficult pregnancy and chose life for her baby. That's courage. If the pro-abortion extremists try to attack her, it will look really bad.

2. Administrative experience. Face it. The job of the VP is to be ready for the unthinkable. In Palin, one gets someone with executive experience.

3. Reformer. Not part of the old guard or old boys network in Alaska, she has been relentless in challenging the corruption that has raised its ugly head again in the indictment of Sen. Stevens. She has been an ardent opponent of Stevens. This plays to the McCain reform theme.

4. Energy awareness. Coming from Alaska,she can speak with an expertise about the energy issues and discuss the importance of being self reliant as we move toward developing additional means to provide energy to this nation.

5. Youth. She gives a nod to the next generation while reflecting the time honored traditions that have made this nation strong.

6. She is a woman. Her presence on the ticket gives women another good reason to support McCain. She will attract those women who do not warm up to Obama as well as those who were supporting Hillary in the primary.

7. Maverick. She has a reputation for taking on the tough issues with a certain independent flair and that is what the people in this country want.

8. Excitement. She will bring some excitement to the race.

9. Conservative principles. Pro-gun, pro-marriage, pro-life. This can excite the base and get them out of the doldrums.

John McCain should seriously consider this prospect.

I am pleased to announce that the Arizona Right to Life Political Action Committee has endorsed Senator John McCain for president of the United States. The PAC generally issues its endorsements in July following its examination of the records and candidate surveys that are sent and returned in June following the close of the filing process. The PAC will be issuing its endorsements of the county, state and federal races this week. Look to the website for the link that will identify who AZRTL believes will best represent the concerns of the pro-life community this fall.

As for the selection of Senator McCain, those following this blog have known my personal support for the Senator and my overall disgust with the duplicity of his opponent. I can only encourage everyone to use every effort to promote his candidacy and to clearly articulate the extreme pro-abortion position of Barack Obama.

We need a friend in the White House, someone with whom we can communicate, encourage and counsel. Pass the word among those who seem tired or weary with the process.: Obama is owned by Planned Parenthood. He has a slick message that is long on sweet sounding verbiage and short on real substance. His message though when distilled is this - America needs to moves to the left. America needs to become more like Europe. America must pay more to the government so that government can do more for you. In essence, he is asking the people of America to give up their self reliance, their independence, their freedoms and to trust in the security that Obama will bring.

As for protecting life, Obama could care less.

As for protecting unborn children, Obama could care less.

As for standing up against those who would destroy marriage and the family, Obama could care less.

Obmaa wants us to be tolerant of those who disagree with us, but tells us that we are the ones who have to change.

What ever has kept you on the sidelines, the time for passivity has ended. We must elect a president who believes in the traditions of this nation, the traditions of this culture and the traditions of this our western civilization. We must elect John McCain.

On InsideCatholic.com Deal Hudson writes a blog about a Time article by Amy Sullivan concerning the upcoming election and the Catholic vote. From reading the article it would appear that Time Magazine wants Catholics to believe that they can vote for Obama with impunity and without any constrictions. The writer therefore showcases Doug Kmiec, a conservative law professor, former dean, and well known Catholic who appears “hell bent” on making himself the Benedict Arnold of the pro-life movement.

The article suggested that Catholics were evenly split between McCain and Obama and that such polling did not bode well for McCain. Hudson begged to differ and I would agree although maybe for slightly different reasons.

The story pulls up the old canards and reminds everyone of Pastor Hagee's past anti-Catholic statements, ignoring what one could would suggest was a serious step in the improving Catholic-Protestant relations when conversations between Hagee and Bill Donahue of the Catholic took place this Spring. There is also the typical arrogance of such magazines as Time, suggesting that the priests had better be careful or else.

The story also failed to address some of the reasons that this theory was suspect or any person who thought different from Kmiec. But enough of the bias, I was concerned if there was any truth to the story. After all Sullivan referenced a poll done by Time/CNN and as much as I poured over the story, I could not find any of the details. So I clicked on a cgphic and there on the bottom of the page was the source of the data and the polling organization.

There was the headline. “Catholic Vote Up For Grabs”

It sounded as though Sullivan was right. Then I read the next paragraph.

"John McCain holds a wide 11-point lead over Barack Obama, 42% to 31%, with 26% undecided among likely Catholic voters, according to the latest national Time Magazine Poll, conducted June 18 – 25." 

Sullivan throughout her whole article conveniently ignores this bit of data. She does not even mention this part that likely voters support McCain by 11 points.

It is only when polling all those who state that they are Catholic (and that could include a lot of non-practicing Catholics) one getsthe results that the vote is ‘up for grabs.”

So why the slippery reporting.

Why.

Go back to the story’s use of Kmiec. The democrats know that they have to weaken the Catholic vote on the pro-life issue. They know that they cannot attack it straight on or we pro-lifers will just quote Obama as supporting infanticide, Planned Parenthood, PBA, etc.

So the Obama people have decided to dust off Kmiec, quote him as being for Obama and point out how "pro-life" and "Catholic" he is, using the daily mass language, etc.

Next Obama gives a speech on faith based initiatives. The press speaks in glowing terms. Barry Lynn of the ACLU laments Obama’s tack toward the Center and everyone is suppose to believe that he is moving toward reasonableness. Until you read the speech. Until you realize that in Obama’s world, religious and faith based organizations would not be allowed to exercise freedom of speech.

Let me quote directly from my friend Hugh Hewitt

Here's the core of Obama:

He's hard left.

He wants the marginal rate on total federal taxes, including his social security tax hike, to immediately rise at least 57% on the highest earners.  Obama wants to raise taxes even in a weak economy, though this is a recipe not just for recession but worse.  Obama also wants to raise taxes on dividend income and to return the death tax to its highs of eight years ago.

Obama has proposed more than a trillion dollars in new spending.

Obama wants to cut and run from Iraq, with withdrawals of crucial forces beginning immediately upon his entry into office.  Obama has never met one on one with General Petraeus and has not been to Iraq in more than 900 days.  He is indifferent to the incredible progress made by our troops and the Iraqi Defense Forces and the Iraqi government in the last 18 months.

He supports the decision extending habeas rights to Gitmo detainees and he thinks the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a great model for future Supreme Court appointments.

Obama supports gay marriage, and opposes the California constitutional amendment to restore marriage to the definition overturned by a 4-3 vote of the California Supreme Court in May.  He supports abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion.

Obama has the slightest grasp on history, and routinely makes the sort of errors about basic facts that shock knowledgeable observers, like arguing the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna was an example of the benefits of one-on-one diplomacy.

Obama is not a strong friend of Israel.  He spent 20 years in a church that was openly hostile to Israel, and he reversed himself on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel after one day of criticism by Palestinians.

Obama is running a dirty campaign, and the serial assaults on John McCain's service, most visibly by Wesley Clark but by many others closely associated with Obama, is repulsive.  These are not hits by independent 527s but by close associates and advisors of Obama.

Michelle Obama's campaign rhetoric has been very divisive, is full of anger and resentment about "moving the bar," and not being proud of the country, and has led to her high negatives with the public.

Obama's close friends, mentors and associates are deeply troubling: the radical pastor Jeremiah Wright, the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the convicted swindler Tony Rezko, and now a long line of "public housing developers" who took the money and failed to deliver on promises of safe and secure housing for Obama's poorest constituents.

Obama's judgment on key appointees is suspect, and he has had to fire the head of his vice presidential search team because of ties to the subprime mess and dump numerous "foreign policy advisors" for their hostility to Israel.

Obama's deal with the Teamsters to end federal oversight of the union smells very bad indeed and telegraphs the sort of cronyism we could expect from an Obama Adminsitration. Obama's mentor and real estate partner is Rezko, who helped the Obama's buy their home, a home on which the Obamas received a mortgage that looks to many like a sweetheart deal.

Obama, like the other leaders of the Triple D Democrats --the Don't Drill Democrats-- doesn't care about the price of gas, and refuses every initiative to increase supply and thus bring that price down.

Obama has broken his word on his commitment to public financing of the campaign and to meet John McCain in frequent debates.  Obama can't be trusted to keep even high-profile promises he made even only weeks ago.

Away from a teleprompter Obama stumbles and stutters and lapses into a closed circle of cliches that betrays almost no reading or curiosity about the world around him,and a massive ignorance of the war in which we find ourselves.  Even when he works from a prompter he says nothing at great length with wonder phrasing but zero substance'

Make no mistake. The national media is going to put an all out push for the election of Barack Hussain Obama. The press and the media hate the Republicans and Bush so much that there will not even be any hint of fairness.

Be prepared. This is going to get ugly.

Now that Barack Obama has effectively garnered enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination, the mainstream media is fawning all over him and John McCain will be the target of their unbridled passion to dictate the outcome of the 2008 presidential race. 

So what else is new?

The mainstream press has always (or at least for the last 40 years) been liberal – democrat – pro-abort and pro-homosexual. The masterminds of the media know much more that the folks who “do most of the working and paying and living and dying” in this country. And they have decided that the USA needs to have an ardent socialist who supports abortion on demand and national heath care with abortion paid for by the tax payers. This is someone who with a college education does not know when a person’s life begins and has been rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL Pro-Choice America for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.

In Barack’s own words, when asked about when human life begins, he said,

“This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.” Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Now if one is to give Barack the benefit of the doubt on his lack of knowledge regarding this crucial question, should he not give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt as to her humanity?

His latest remark was that he is not “pro-abortion,” he is “pro-choice.” Well that would infer that abortion is an equally acceptable “:choice” for the person to make. It implies that he does not see any moral problem with a woman procuring an abortion. So why does he equivocate? Ids there a shred of duplicity here or is he being coached by those who want to diffused the powerful pro-life voting bloc to re-consider his candidacy?

There are those who are attempting to divide the pro-life movement. These people point to the failures of the Republican administration and the Republican leadership in their efforts to end abortion. Frankly the Republicans have not done all they should have to stop the killing. And there have been those who have compromised on the issue. You will find my criticisms of their failures in my previous writings.

And the pro-life movement as a whole has failed to make inroads into the Democrat Party to challenge the headlock that the pro-abortion extremists have on the party and the party leadership. For too many years pro-life leadership has not been truly non-partisan in its efforts to influence political forces both in Washington and beyond.

But let’s get real.

Is Nancy Pelosi going to stop funding Planned Parenthood.?

Is the Democratic leadership that has been controlling the House and Senate for the last two years going to provide any legislation to protect unborn children?

Who is going to stand up and defend innocent unborn human life both her and overseas?

Not Barack Obams.

This Senator from Illinois voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act while in the Illinois legislature.

This fellow regrets having voted to try to help Terri Schiavo.

I ask all the apologists for Barack Obama who claim to be pro-life how one can support a fellow who “regrets” having tried to help save a defenseless BORN woman’s life.

So the drum beat will go on how Obama is about “change.” But where will the change come for the unborn child?  There will be no change for the unborn child if Obama is elected. He will want to increase the genocide against the unborn. This genocide will include poor children of the ghettos and barrios. This genocide will harm women and permanently scar their fragile lives. This genocide will not bring about a better world where everyone will have an equal chance at life.

The mainstream media does not care. The liberal elites do not care. But perhaps in the small towns, in the modern suburbs, in the inner cities, and elsewhere, there are people who do care. The people who “do most of the working and paying and living and dying” in this country, will stand up for their children and the women and offer them real opportunities to choose life.  These people will vote for someone who knows what it is to suffer to defend what is right, honorable and true. These people will vote for someone who believes in “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “

The American people want to think that our best days are ahead. In their hearts they would choose life for their children. We must make the contrasts known for the “choice” this November is clear. The consequences of our actions will affect future generations throughout the world for years to come.

 

The latest slugfest between Obama and Clinton should remind those of us who find either candidate upsetting, that we have much work to do if we are to not only win the White House in November but also pick up some seats in the House of Representatives.  As the Democratic nomination winds its way through toward the summer months, we need to be registering voters, organizing the grass roots and identifying the key issues that will compel the American people to support the mature, responsible and experienced candidate, Senator John McCain.

As the Senator continues to hone his message to the American people, we who are active in the party and in conservative and pro-life circles, must connect with our constituencies and develop the networks and the people power to get out the vote for the primary and general elections. Now is not the time to weary or lose hope. The needs of the nation call upon us to stand in the gap against the pro-abortion, anti-American, collectivist mentality espoused by either democrat.

But our leaders must not be timid either. Republican senatorial leadership must demand up and down votes on judicial candidates.  The House leadership must propose a real and tangible response to the energy crisis. The American people must know that the Democratic leadership in this Congress has FAILED to respond to the pressing needs of the day.

Winning in November is not an option. To protect this nation from those who dismantle it and curtail our freedom, it is an imperative.

It has been the conversation of the last few days and really asks the serious question if this freshman senator from Illinois is so smug to not care that he is insulting working and middle class  Americans or if he is so clueless as not to know that he is doing so. I think the former. Obama is a smart politician and people who take him lightly do so at their peril. He is smooth when he has to be and can give a speech that says nothing and still has everyone talking about how masterful  he is with the English language. So why the misses? Why the comments that turn off the very voters he will need now during the primary and  later in November?

Here are some thoughts.

Obama has an agenda that heretofore has been covered with platitudes and slogans. He has not been very specific. What most people see is an energetic young man of color who offers "change."  And the first thing he is offering up to the voters is that he is NOT Hillary Clinton.
The excitement palyed to his strengths and the media found a new darling to dote on. Add a ruffled Bill Clinton and the media decided that the Clintons were history. So the so-called  "mainstream" or "old" media has hitched its wagon to the young Obama. and cast off the tried old shoe we call Hillary Clinton.

Not that Hillary is going quietly into that good night.

No, her people have pulled out the race card and publicly insinuated that the public will not vote for ....dare I say it.... a black man.

The reaction has been predictable.

but what does this have to do with Obama saying things that at first glance are very dumb. Well, he was speaking to a certain  group of elites. He still has to pass their muster. And the real truth - unstated as it is -about rich white liberals, is that many of them are more "racially biased" ( I will be polite and not say "bigoted") than the stereotypical white southerner as portrayed in liberal white newspapers.
And there is a pecking order in society that Obama has to chart. So by playing the fellow who can explain the problems of those people who are "bitter" to his new rich white San Francisco liberal friends, he make a contact and establishes a bond. He has studied at the exclusive schools. His comments infer the notion that "he has dedicated myself to activating the "poor."  He is telling them that we are so much different as we pity these people who do not know. After all he infers, "we Democrats know best. " 

So he will take the slings and arrows for a few days. But the press will cover for him. He will lose Pennsylvania but it won't be by too much, he figures, and by the way, he is meeting with Casey ands Roemer to work out a Catholic strategy. 

Of course he is also banking on McCain being a gentleman in the general. He figures that press will keep McCain off guard answering all the old questions once again and no one will look behind the curtain.

An interesting strategy. However it is not over until it is over. Hillary is not going to let him with the nomination without a fight to the finish. He probably knows that by now.  Yet the scrutiny will continue and the more that America sees that this freshman Senator with the racist pastor, the rich lawyer wife who was never proud of America until now, the business connection who is on trial in Chicago,  is the same fellow who rad into an autobiographical book on tape profanities and foul language, the same fellow who calls pregnancy a punishment, who is the most liberal member of the Senate, who wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and whose only vote he regrets was the one that tried to help save a medically dependent women's life, the more America will reject such extremism.

Obama thinks that he can be smug and above it all.

However Obama does not understand the American people. They are a decent people. They have a heart. They have a soul. They may not want to address some issues because they are repelled by them, but for the most part they are a caring people.  These are the people who make America work every day. They are believers and they trust in their fellow citizens. Yes there are problems, but they believe thatthe solutions come form hard work and a willingness to be invested in the fabric of the community.

The American people will not want a smug arrogant freshman who will need on the job training . Once the American people see the real Obama, they will reject him and his failed liberal divisive polices. The media will claim it is because of race.  But it will be a choice between McCain's experience under fire and the incompetence of a youth without wisdom.

There must be something about February that brings out the weird, the unusual and the strange in politics.  Wait a minute – those words all mean the same thing. Ah, but it sounded poetic. You all remember your English teacher reminding you to set up your speech with triads. After all, half the battle in giving a speech is to make sure that it resonates with the audience. For those who have purchased a vacuum cleaner at your front door or the today’s version of the Yugo, you know what I mean. He was nice and it all sounded so good!

 

Well, that my friends is my reaction when I read Doug Kmeic’s article in Slate, claiming that Barack Hussain Obama is a “natural for the Catholic vote.” Now I know and respect Doug as a brilliant legal mind and a good man. But, I must take issue with him on his ability to take such talents and apply them to the current situation in this crazy and often mixed up world of politics.  I will defer any comments on his selection during the primary. Mr. Romney was gracious in realizing that he could not win and as I am preparing this article, he is releasing his delegates to Senator McCain and announcing his support for the Arizona Senator.

 

Doug’s first error is in comparing the substance and style of Ronald Reagan with Obama. Certainly anyone who can give a good speech can be hailed has a great communicator. But the reason that Reagan attracted so many Catholics and Democrats was because they knew him. They knew him as the actor who played George Gip in “Knute Rockne.”  They knew him from the days when he introduced the stories on Death Valley Days. They knew him as the governor in California who stood up to the student sit-ins, and did all of this with a smile. They remembered the days when he traveled the country giving speeches on economic freedom and against communism. So when he ran for president and repeated principles based upon respect for the sanctity of life, economic and personal freedom, and national security, the much of the Catholic population responded positively. When he spoke of a shining city on the hill, and that America’s best days were ahead, he reminded many Catholics of the hope that comes from God. Reagan never tired of reminding people that our rights are a gift from the Creator, especially the right to life.

 

Ronald Reagan spoke a language that Catholics and those who believed in God could understand.

 

Now let us look as Senator Obama. He is an attractive articulate voice for secular liberalism, wrapped up in a mantle that eschews labels and speaks about hope, and unity and the future.  He creates energy, much like a movie star or celebrity. How much of it is a reaction to Hillary is a legitimate question. After all a year ago, all of the pundits were telling the great unwashed (and those of us who do bathe) that the general election was going to be between Hillary and Rudy. We pro-lifers were told to get use to it. When we objected, we were ridiculed.  Such are the vagaries of life.  Obama to his credit has run a positive campaign (notwithstanding his positions on issues which are not very positive at all). People like positive messages. They may not have much substance but the people like them. Hillary represents the scandals of the previous Clinton era.  A lot of people are simply tired of the Clintons. Obama gives them an excuse to vote for “change” and break with the tired policies of the Clintons.

 

But that does not translate into Catholic support for Obama.

 

When Catholics learn how violently pro-abortion Obama is, they will ask how he can argue for hope and the future when he supports killing the least of our brethren.

 

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear. You cannot vote for a person who thinks that killing children is permissible when there is a reasonable alternative.

 

And most Catholics will not be turned off by McCain’s support for the death penalty. It is not a non-negotiable like abortion. Catholic teaching permits the use of the death penalty in certain situations. This argument is a liberal canard used to excuse voting for someone who is pro-abortion.  Educated and practicing Catholics are not going to vote for a person who supports partial birth abortion and voted against a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act while in the Illinois Senate.

 

Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, a proposed federal law to nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion. As this information is brought to the public’s attention, the luster will soon dim from the media’s latest darling.

 

As for Catholics “giving up McCain for Lent,” the truth is that many who were not originally keen on McCain are and have been giving him a second look. Some pro-life advocates are still concerned about his lack of understanding on the stem cell issue, but the latest scientific discoveries may render that discussion moot. He is and has been for the 24 years of his political life, pro-life.  There are some who are concerned about the Iraq question. His knowledge and understanding of national security will serve him well. But where McCain will score well is on his love of his country and the story of his life. If he can translate that story into one of one that promotes the best interests of the United States in a very dangerous world, if he can remind people that it is in freedom that we as a people can accomplish the greatest good, and if he can defend the rights of all persons, born and unborn, to live in dignity and opportunity by scaling back the destructive growth of government, then Catholics and others will be drawn to his message.

 

I do not see anyone who knew and appreciated Ronald Reagan joining the band wagon of a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-family radical like Obama once they know his positions and can envision what he intends to do to this country. Indeed the clash of ideas and the clear differences in position once again may be the best avenue for our country to take as we move toward the election in November.  To that end more Catholics will find it “natural” to vote for the candidate that chooses life and will protect the lives of all Americans.

 

John Jakubczyk is a lawyer and past President of Arizona Right to Life. He has been involved in the pro- life movement for the last 32 years.

 

 

I often wonder why certain politicians seem overly fascinated with defending the status quo on the subject of abortion. Some have bought into the whole canard that somehow protecting the right to kill unborn children empowers women and gives them equality with men. Some want it legal so they can have it as a backup means to birth control. Others seem to reflect a deep seeded hatred for the role of women as child-bearers – that, somehow it isn’t fair that women should have to bear the burden. Then there are some who are so selfish so as to want it available in the oft chance that they will have need of it fro themselves or a family member. Finally there are those who want abortion as a tool of population control and as a means to curtail the growth of certain ethnic groups and races.

So why does someone like Janet Napolitano want abortion to remain legal?

If she studied her biology in high school, she knows the “fetus” is a human being from the moment of conception.

As a law student she should have studied the case law that provided support for the protection of the infant “in ventre sa mare” and the statutes passed by the various states protecting the life of the unborn child. She also would have read the dubious arguments attacking the humanity of the unborn child. Yet if she was like the many feminist law students I recall in my days at the university, she may have had a resentment toward the law and toward those men who wrote the laws that protected women and children. She may have been like so many women who knew but did not care that the child was human but only cared if the child was wanted. Perhaps she had a misplaced sympathy for those children who grew up in poverty or neglect, whose lives were not perfect as the American dream.

But Janet Napolitano embraced abortion throughout her legal and political career. She was a part of a liberal law firm and acted as one of the attorneys for Anita Hill when the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual liberals were trying to destroy Clarence Thomas. You will recall that liberals do not like people to leave the liberal plantation. And when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it was not enough that as an African-American, he had achieved so much. He was not one of them. He was a conservative. He was a Christian. He had to be destroyed. And so the left took out one of the most disgusting plays from the racial playbook and Janet Napolitano was in on the ground floor advising Anita Hill.

Thomas survived the “lynching” as he called it and now sits on the Supreme Court. Napolitano continued her law career until Clinton offered her an appointment as a U.S. Attorney in Arizona. A shrewd appointment, because it would give her the cover as a prosecutor and provide her with access to the criminal justices system and all the confidential information that includes.

When she was elected attorney general after defeating Tom McGovern in a close bitter dirty race, we all knew she was following the Bruce Babbitt advance track for government advancement. What many of us did not know was how badly she was going to wreck the attorney general’s office and permit a series of scandal-ridden events to detract from the important work being done by that agency.

I have not the time to address the CPS scandals and the problems in juvenile court. But I will recall that event seven years ago in the fall of 1999 when a 14 year-old girl and her unborn child were made pawns of a pro-abortion mindset that has infected the legal system and this country.

Today an event such as this one probably would not even make the Arizona Republic. After all the paper continues to run interference for Janet and her minions. But in 1999 they saw a story and actually wrote about it. Here is what happened.

A 14 year-old ward of the court was pregnant. She had been in the custody of CPS since the age of five (another failure of our state foster case and adoption system). She had been a run away. In fact she used to run away a lot according to the state. She was pregnant. The state wanted her to have an abortion. She did not want an abortion according to her relatives. Then she was picked up again and now she was over 20 weeks along. The authorities wanted her to disclose the father. She refused, alternating stories between being in love with him and having been assaulted. He court appointed lawyer them files a motion to allow her to go out of state to have a later term abortion. The state does not object. The state is represented by the attorney general’s office. Janet is the attorney general. The juvenile court judge William Sergeant grants the motion and the state begins to make arrangements to transport her to California for this later term abortion (makes you wonder how many other abortions were approved by the juvenile court). At this point someone balks. Not a judge, not a lawyer, not a caseworker at DES. No the person who balks is someone involved in the process. An unknown who makes something very wrong known to the world – and who created a national firestorm.

The public outcry over the idea of sending someone out of state to kill her child on the state’s dime was too much - even for the Arizona Republic. They reported the story. The public reaction was loud and clear. They opposed it. People offered to adopt the child. Agencies offered to take her in through and after the pregnancy. One politician offered her a scholarship to college if she would reconsider. But we will never know if she ever knew of the offers of aid. Because at first Janet’s office refused to even ask the judge to reconsider. When the pressure did not subside, the AG’s office filed a motion to reconsider. After a few days the judge ruled again in favor of killing the child. The AG’s office said it was over. The public pressure soon even found its way to the governor’s office. After at first ignoring it, Governor Hull told Napolitano that if she did not appeal the ruling, the governor would appoint special counsel. Napolitano relented and filed an appeal. The case was argued before Appellate court judge Michael Ryan who reversed the lower court ruling and sent the case back with a mandate to answer some serious questions. It looked like the child’s life would be spared.

But in a move that defied the law, the rules of court, the mandate issued by Judge Ryan, and all common sense, the state attorney general Janet Napolitano, agreed to the unprecedented request to argue an appeal of Judge Ryan’s ruling BY TELEPHONE on a SUNDAY morning WITHOUT any BRIEFS or WRITTEN ARGUMENTS or RECORD for the Supreme Court to review. That the Court agreed to even take it was unbelievable. But that Janet agreed to allow it to happen and did not object but went out of her way to accommodate the court appointed lawyer who was pushing for the abortion, violated her duty to the people. All she had to do was object to any expedited appeal. All she had to do was argue that the rules had to be followed. All she had to do was argue that Judge Ryan’s order s were reasonable. She could have demanded briefs be filed and an in person argument be made before the court. All the mother and baby needed was time.

You see the girl by this time was 28 weeks pregnant. No one in California would do the abortion now. Even the notorious Planned Parenthood would not do a late term abortion. The only abortionist in the country who would be delighted to kill the baby for a huge fee was an abortionist known as George Tiller. His office is in Wichita Kansas. Now Planned Parenthood was helping Janet behind the scenes. Their employees arranged for the flight to Kansas. They told the AG that they had to have her on the plane by Sunday because the abortion is a three-day procedure. Janet had to look like she was fighting to protect the girl and the baby and then lose at the Arizona State Supreme Court. Then everyone could be upset at the State Supreme Court.

So on a Sunday morning when most people were getting up for church, the State justices were hearing by telephone without any record, with a directive to get them an answer in an hour, a case about a 14 year old ward of the court and whether the lower court judge’s ruling should be upheld as within his discretion or whether the appeals court judge was correct to reverse the trial court.

One additional wrinkle: one of the justices was Stanley Feldman. Justice Feldman was the lawyer for Planned Parenthood when he was in private practice. He argued for the reversal of Arizona’s laws criminalizing abortion. To his credit and consistent with the canons of judicial conduct, he offered to recuse himself, that is, to not hear the case and get a replacement. Did Janet accept this offer? Did Janet realize that he would rule against the state? Did Janet want to lose so the baby would die?

The AG did nothing to remove Feldman from the case. They did not accept his offer to recuse himself.

The court ruled 3-2 against the state, reversed the appellate court ruling and returned it to the juvenile judge. The girl was on a plane that same day. Within the next three days she would undergo an abortion and her baby would be dead.

Janet meanwhile launched an investigation as to how this information became public. With a vengeance she sought to uncover the hero who refused to go quietly into that good night. “A climate of fear,” was how one DES employee referred to her reign. She knew that she could not have something like this go public again.

As I recall these events, I am amazed at the “blood lust” and how it was fueled by the pro-abortion elements in the city. Former abortionist and current convicted felon Brian Finkel lost no time getting his personage on the news and in the papers as he attacked pro-lifers who wanted to save the mother and her baby. The attitude by so many in the legal system was utter hatred at being exposed to the public scrutiny. Even after the baby was killed the Republic, never a friend to the unborn, called for an investigation to root out the leaks.

Years later, one sees the same anger and hatred toward pro-lifers and those who work to offer alternatives to abortion. Why?

Why is it so hard to love a child?

Why does that child or any child pose such a threat to these people that they want the children dead?

And how is it that these same people claim to care about the state, or the nation, and yet can without any pangs of conscience embrace the killing of children?

There were many lives affected by that one child who lived only briefly before being legally executed with the sanction of the state. His or her life offered many people many choices. These choices will ring through eternity. You too have a choice. On November 7, 2006, election-day, you can choose those who support and want to protect all innocent human life or you can choose to back those who view abortion as a means to solving unplanned problems permanently. And while you are thinking about it, remember this, that little child who was killed in that Wichita abortion clinic, would be six years old and sitting in a first grade class.

But because of Janet Napolitano, that child is dead.

Well I have set up another means of expressing my thoughts on the day's events as they relate to the culture of life.

I will continue to comment through the Arizona Right to Life website and invite you to check that site for the latest in news and information on Arizona related pro-life events.  

And since it is very late, I will leave you with a link to LifeNews.com for the latest in pro-life information.