Politics

Here is an interesting interview by NRO with Brian Golden a Democratic state representative from Massachusetts.

Rep. Golden: If you look at it objectively you can see a profound difference. When John Kennedy spoke to people about his religion, he was essentially saying, "I’m a Catholic, but don’t hold it against me." John Kerry essentially says, "I’m a Catholic, but don’t hold me to it."

It’s one thing if you don’t believe that human life begins at conception. However, John Kerry admits he believes that life begins at conception but won’t do anything to protect it in law. How does he square his conscience with his official antipathy to all legislation protecting human life? John Kennedy said that "if the time should ever come…when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise." Can you imagine that coming from John Kerry? Senator Kerry’s willingness to place political expedience before conscience is disturbing no matter what your faith.

A priest writes to Captain’s Quarters in response to Fr. Hummer’s support of John Kerry.

I’m sorry to report that Fr. Hummer would not be the only priest in Ohio to welcome John Kerry with his cheerleader’s pom-poms. There are all too many of my colleagues who have not moved out the ‘60’s or the knee-jerk pacifism or union-worshipping that goes with it. The problems are many and need not detain us here. There is, however, good news coming. I teach at the Catholic seminary in St. Louis (Kenrick Seminary) occasionally and the new guys coming in are outstanding for the most part (you could see this in the incident in St. Louis after the debate there where the seminarians held a prayer vigil at the Kerry rally afterward-those were my students). These men will be bishops sooner rather than later.

As has been said, “Help is on the way.”

All the anecdotal information I have seen verifies this viewpoint as does this post from The Meandering Mind of a Seminarian. It was no surprise that Fr. Greeley took a break from writing his usual soft porn to write a column about young fogeys to decry this trend.

Five swing state newspapers will publish a full-page ad Wednesday chiding Democratic Sen. John Kerry for embracing abortion rights – what an accompanying list of Catholic elected officials and voters argue is a contradiction to his faith.

The ad, titled "An Open Letter from Fellow Catholics to John Kerry," was paid for by the Bush-Cheney campaign. It is running in mid-sized newspapers with strong Catholic readership in Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Florida.

"In the most recent debate, Senator Kerry, you said, ‘everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith,’ and that ‘everything is a gift from the Almighty.’ But apparently, when it comes to the issue of the right to life, you follow neither your own faith nor your own reason," the ad says.

"Senator Kerry, your stand contradicts both your faith and reason," the ad says.

The letter is signed by 38 Catholics, including Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; American Catholic Council president Connie Marshner; former Major League Baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn; and a handful of college professors, including two from Catholic University. [Source]

Again John Kerry has gone to a black church and has touted the same bible verse that he has cited previously from the Book of James – that faith without works is dead. Since this is the only one he ever seems to cite maybe it is what Protestants call a life verse that speaks to him. If it is I find it pretty ironic that he continuously uses this verse especially considering his position that abortion is wrong and is a article of faith, but he can’t do anything about it in public life. Maybe he should modify it to "Faith without works is dead unless you represent people of different faiths or no faiths at all. In this case faith without works is politically expedient." And why is it that he only brings up a Bible verse is when speaking in front of predominantly black audiences like at churches and at the NAACP? This seems to me to be pandering.

Redstate refers to a blog that lists the 29 times John Kerry said "I have a plan" during the debate. A great way for Jeopardy to save money would be to ask constestants "What is John Kerry’s plan." His multiple plans our so secret that their security clearance require him to store them in Sandy Berger’s socks.

There is an excerpt on Catholics for President George W. Bush and the interview (pdf file) is here.

First it was the Fictitious Kerry in Cambodia and now it appears that in a 2001 Senator Kerry claimed during an interview that he had been in Iraq during the cease-fire agreement.Captains Quarter’s and their readers have developed a time line that makes this story impossible without the use perhaps of a Star Trek transporter. I wonder if there is a plank in the Democratic Party that requires its nominees to embellish stories to include themselves in it. The Forest Gumping of the party where anyone can appear to be meeting President Kennedy or any other prominent historical event. Four years ago during the debates after then Governor Bush told a story about disaster relief in Texas, Al Gore chimed in that he was also there as part of the FEMA team. This of course turned out to be totally made-up, but it just makes you wonder about the pathology of the me-too-I-was-there syndrome.

Last month I received an email asking me if I wanted to review a book by Phyllis Schlafly. Asking me if I wanted a free book is like asking Homer Simpson if he wants a donut. But asking me about a book by Phyllis Schlafly is a virtual slam dunk. I have long admired her and just last weekend she turned eighty. Her work to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is something we can all be greatly thankful for. She had warned that the ERA would lead to constitutional protection of homosexual marriage and though she was mocked at the time for making the slippery slope argument, she has been born out. In the Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health they relied on the Massachusetts state’s ERA to legalize same-sex marriage. In fact law professor Eugene Volokh had posted before that Phyllis Schlafly said it would be like this. So we all owe her a debt of gratitude or else the present federal circumstance could have been much worse.

Her new book "The Supremacists" is extremely worthwhile reading. She provides the history of judicial activism and divides it up into chapters covering specific topics such as Acknowledgment of God, Abortion, and U.S. Sovereignty. Her writing is easily readable and does not require you to be a legal wonk to follow along. The book is not dated in any way since it also includes very recent Supreme Court decisions along with an excellend appendix.

One of the parts I found interesting was the following.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 91 that he expected Congress to use its discretion to make appropriate"exceptions and regulations" to keep the judiciary" the least dangerous" of the three branches of government.

Obviously the actions of the court has become disordered and that the court would now reign supreme. She traces the history of judicial activism and points to its genesis as the infamous Dred Scott decision. In this case not only did they make a horrible and pro-slavery decision in regards to the citizenship of Dred Scott, but they then also exceeded their jurisdiction by striking down the and calling unconstitutional a federal law as part of the Missouri Compromise which forbid slavery in the Western territories. This has become the pattern in judicial activism where they give advisory opinions on issues that are not even before them in a case. Of course the Dred Scott case was a mirror for Roe v. Wade and once again the court decides who is a person and who is property. Learning from past mistakes is not a strong suit of the court.

Besides just detailing judicial horror stories she goes on to show how the problem can be solved. The solution she proposes is interesting because it relies on what was to me surprising information on the legislatures oversight on federal courts. You will just have to read the book yourself to find out what this is.

So with the Dred Scott case we see there has been judicial activism as long as their has been Republican presidents. She also points out how some of the greatest activists have been appointed by Republican presidents and mentions that an appointee of which President Eisenhower greatly regretted having put on the bench. In recent years Democrats have been infallible in appointing liberal activists to the court, but Republican appointees have definitely been a mixed bag. If President Bush does get an opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices I hope he learns from the mistake of his father and other presidents before him. Unfortunately their spines seem to turn to jelly when the words litmus test is uttered.

I highly recommend this book and if you are interested in purchasing it you could go to Domenico Bettinelli’s site and click on the link there to get it at half price.

Earl Appleby Jr. starts with day one of his GOP convention coverage as he did with the Democratic convention.

I am still waiting for the GOP convention to start. Last night the GOP seemed to be preempted and I watched the speeches from the MOP (Moderates On Parade) convention. Hugh Hewitt during the Democratic convention played a little game about how long it would take before you heard the words Al Qaida there. We can play a similar game with the GOP – how long before you hear about the scourge of abortion.

John McCain, who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, delivered a mediocre speech that’s largest reaction was to the mention of Michael Moore who was in attendance reporting for USA today. As Earl mentions he must have repeated Friends in the Democratic Party 50 times during that speech. I guess this was to pay back all the kind things speakers at the Democratic Convention said about the Republicans – oh wait, that didn’t exactly happen. While McCain speech ended in rousing support for President Bush, the speech was mainly forgettable and not delivered very well.

Rudolf Giuliani did deliver a very good speech. It was well written and obviously Giuliani’s heart was in it. I don’t blame the Republicans for starting off with giving the credentials of President Bush as Commander in Chief since that is the bedrock of the Presidency. But Giuliani is a fiscal conservative and a supporter on the war on terror, but he is also firmly a social liberal. A culture of death Catholic of whom I am glad is not currently in any political office.

So who will be the first to talk about same-sex marriage, abortion, or embryonic stem-cell research? Possibly First Lady Laura Bush might do it on Tuesday or recent convert Senator Sam Brownback, but more likely Democrat Senator Zell Miller on Wednesday. I just wonder how many are there that actually support the majority of the GOP platform which is still very pro-life and in support of traditional marriage? How many just play lip service to it while supporting a different agenda?

While national defense is extremely important, terrorists can only dream of effecting the slaughter we permit daily at abortion clinics. Bin Laden boasted of his three thousand killed and Planned Parenthood and cohorts chock up 3 to 4,000 daily in abortion mills. We notice the gaping whole where the World Trade Centers use to be but we are immune to the gaping hole of the missing 43,000,000 in our population.

Oswald Sobrino at Catholic Analysis reviews the Republican platform and declares it Catholic Friendly.

Earl reports on Dick Cheney’s split with the president on the Federal Marriage Amendment. As for me I am all for sending him back to an undisclosed location.