Video: The current financial woes and the cause of them

I'm sure most people are reading the headlines ("Dow plunges 800 points amid global sell-off").

Considering the importance of the topic, I think this video bears re-posting (yes, it's back up):

McCain has decided to start talking about this history on the campaign trail.

The simple fact of the matter, as I see it, is that Democrat policies led more to this current crisis than Republican ones, and that more government involvement was the cause of this problem, and will not be the solution.

Video: SNL on the VP debate

Easing into Monday, something to lighten the load....

Tonight's VP Debate - Predictions

This post will morph into an open thread (+live blogging maybe) when the debate starts tonight at 8pm. Here's what I'm reading to prepare:

• Weekly Standard: Palin v. Biden on Abortion
• CNN: Palin, Biden ready to face off in St. Louis
• Margaret Cabaniss: It's debate time!
• AP: Debate offers high risks, big rewards
• Deal Hudson: I Predict a Palin Victory Tonight
• HotAir: Palin to Biden: Bring it on (video)

I do think Palin will exceed expectations.

What are your predictions/thoughts?

update: Yes I did watch the debate, but unfortunately at a location away from a blogging apparatus. I'm still forming my opinion. I would note quickly that Biden, true to form, reminded us of his pro-abortion stance by saying one of his reasons for objecting to the nomination of Robert Bork as a supreme court justice was that he might have opposed Roe. (Heaven forbid, right?)

Brian Burch at the CatholicVote.com blog said in response:

"I couldn’t help but recall the recent letter of Cardinal Francis George, who wrote: “one cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.” Biden clearly supports the legal status quo, and presumably, expanding the legal status quo (with Sen. Obama) in favor of the Freedom of Choice Act."

I think Palin handled herself very well, especially considering her relative inexperience (five weeks on the national scene against Biden's +30 years), and the low expectations she was greeted with as a result of her recent imperfect interviews. I knew she could do better than those one-sided interviews revealed, partly because I pulled up archived video of her previous debates when running for Governor of Alaska, which helped tremendously in her victory then.

The reaction I'm seeing on the right is extremely positive (which is to be expected), and even on the left, begrudgingly complimentary. What about "average joe six-pack" and America's hockey moms?

Well it seemed like they just loved it.

Finally, while Palin relied heavily on McCain campaign talking points, her personality did shine through from time to time. Biden, on the other hand, only had his talking points, and those change depending on the election cycle, his current campaign, and recent polling. As far as the debate itself, he did have more knowledge of the facts (noticed how much it focused on foreign policy - to Biden's clear advantage) and benefited from some early Palin stage jitters.

Call me cynical, but sophism seems to be the key to political survival these days.... and woe to us.

I'm also very pleased to see the healthy debate proceeding in this comment box - keep it coming!

(Oh, and the beginning photo/caption on this post was hilarious!)

Michael Novak takes on "Catholics for Obama"

The entire article is illuminating reading, but I excerpt Michale Novak's reaction to one of the arguments de jour of the new pro-Obama Catholic apologists (underlining mine):

The other reason for supporting Obama that some Catholic leftists put forward is that very little in reducing abortions has been accomplished by the Republican party in the years since President Reagan. Is that claim true?

Well, President Bush did sign the two acts of legislation that Obama opposed in their state forms, the ban on partial-birth abortion and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. These acts do not seriously alter the number of annual abortions. But they do establish in law the fundamental principle of the natural rights of infants in the womb. They treat these human individuals as worthy of respect and they defend their rights to live and breathe and continue growing into adults.

Two formidable obstacles have prevented Republican presidents from going farther. The first is heavy resistance from most Democrats (who until recently were driving pro-life Democrats out of party leadership) and some Republicans (country-club Republicans, mostly). The second is furious resistance from the liberal judiciary (mostly country-club liberals) at almost every higher level.

It is mind-twisting for reasonable people to discern how leftist Democrats think Obama will change his abortion stripes, and then go farther than President George W. Bush (boo! hiss!) in promoting a culture of life. Most of those who will vote for Obama do not think Obama is pro-life. Why should a few leftist Catholics?

Exactly. If Obama were actually the candidate that a few leftist Catholics claim him to be, that means the vast majority of people voting for Obama don't know what he is about. This is a deception being played upon Catholics on a grand scale, and the rank-and-file Obama planners and strategists know it.

NY bishops' voting guide: abortion outweighs health care, Roe & FOCA crucial

I think this statement released yesterday by the NY bishops conference is very important because it responds to the recently-popularized argument that some pro-choice candidates could actually reduce abortions through their other policies - such as poverty reduction and health care - and thus Catholics could vote for them.

As a faithful Catholic, I think both these policies hold great merit, but if pursuing them means electing someone who will allow and promote the destruction of unborn life along the way, then it is an evil means and cannot be chosen. Catholics are more than utilitarians. And killing some children so that others may have a higher quality of life is the most brutal of utilities.

For a summary of what the New York bishops say, see LifeNews.

For their full original document, click here (recommended).

An excerpt from the statement (underlining mine):

It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.

Did you catch that? The right to life outweighs other concerns, such as universal health care. Universal health care and meeting the needs of the poor is important, but both are logically secondary to having life in the first place. You have to be alive to be poor or need health care. The unborn are the poorest and the most in need of "health care."

The very first "important questions for political candidates" posed by the NY bishops:

• Do you agree with the need to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down all state laws criminalizing abortion and established a woman’s “right” to abort her unborn child in the womb?
• Do you oppose the state’s “Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act” or the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” which both go beyond Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing a fundamental right to abortion with no restrictions or regulations?

The clear teaching of the NY bishops here is that Roe cannot be tolerated by Catholics in good conscience. We cannot give up the fight to tear down unjust and immoral laws. Furthermore, any candidate who actively supports guaranteeing the right to abortion through FOCA, is actively abetting the murder of children.

Simply put, one cannot reduce abortions by promoting them. One cannot vote for someone who will promote abortions and convince oneself honestly that he or she has the best good of unborn children at heart.

Obama v. Babies

If you are looking for a simple, succinct, chilling overview of Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act controversy, see Hadley Arkes.

Meanwhile, Jill Stanek fact checks factcheck.org, which as I said in my last post on this topic, makes the best possible attempt at a counter-claim.

BornAliveTruth.org is also asking for support to spread its message.

As Hadley Arkes mentions above, the Obama camp is playing very aggressively on this issue (almost for broke), trying to make reverse political profit on it.

Palin Jitters

I'm sad to agree with Brian Saint-Paul's assessment. I think the coaching that Sarah Palin has been receiving to prepare her for Thursday's VP debate is hurting, not helping her ability to perform well under pressure.

Related: Breaking Sarah?

also Related ... this sick scheme: "Donate to Planned Parenthood in Palin's name."

Ph/t: AmP Reader Jake.

Obama or McCain? Try Starbucks or Walmart.

NPR:

Even though the two candidates are viewed favorably by about the same number of people, there are some big cultural splits. Of people who get their coffee at Starbucks, 52 percent favor Obama while 39 percent prefer McCain. Of people who frequent Wal-Mart, 58 percent favor McCain while 33 percent prefer Obama.

Actually, espresso trumps politics in my consumption habits.

Ph/t: Todd M. Ahliaro of IC.

The"Freedom of Choice" Act: A wolf waiting in the shadows

Barack Obama promised a group of prominant abortion advocates that his "very first" act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

Such a law, it has been predicted, would result in many, many more abortions in America each year:

FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.

Specifically, if FOCA is passed it will increase abortions by 125,000 more per year in the United States. Since 2004, Dr. Michael New has published studies with the Heritage Foundation showing that a large reduction in abortions can be attributed to these three kinds of laws. (LifeNews)

Such grim statistics really put the lie to the claim that the democrat platform intends to reduce the overall number of abortions in America each year. As much as their social plans may reduce the occurance of abortion incedentally, it is a known fact that their legal proposals will increase the occurance of abortion directly and dramatically.

The American bishops are aware of this fact as well, and Cardinal Regali, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities has written to congress:

Cardinal Justin Rigali sent the letter to Congress on Friday and warned against enactment of the proposed bill (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).

“Despite its deceptive title,” he wrote, “FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry."

He added: "FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that, under FOCA, “abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”

While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe.

These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as “modest and widely supported state laws” protecting women’s safety, informed consent and parental rights.

With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops’ Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA. (LifeNews)

You can read the cardinal's letter here (PDF) and the legal analysis here (PDF). Zenit provides a summary.

Humane Society endorses Obama, dislikes Palin

And they included these comparison pictures between Obama and Palin:


The Weekly Standard blog explains:

"All Animals Are Equal, But ... wolves are more equal than caribou, says the Humane Society in its endorsement of Barack Obama. The Humane Society Legislative Fund's president writes that the group has never before endorsed a presidential candidate, but Sarah Palin simply poses too great of a threat to animals."

Maybe they didn't hear that Obama has gone spearfishing before - and enjoyed it! McCain fishes catfish.

It's a good thing popes have never needed the endorsement of the HS because I'm fairly sure most of them have hunted live game at some point in their life. Can anyone back up my hunch (say, with a photo)?

Joseph Bottum sums things up

Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things, has an excellent piece in the UK Weekly Standard that sums up well about twenty or so stories that AmP has been covering in recent months regarding catholics and American politics.

I urge you to read the whole article, but if don't have time, at least note his conclusion (underlining mine):

"And yet, there remains that question of abortion. Things have tightened over the last few years, the Catholic position is firmer in the public's mind--firmer in the Catholic mind, for that matter. McCain was a long way from the pro-lifers' first choice for a Republican nominee, but the Democrats this election cycle are determined to force the issue. They've pushed, and they've pushed, and they've pushed, until Catholics are falling off the cliff. Poor Doug Kmiec and his sad question, "Can a Catholic Support Him?" As a matter of good conscience, the answer looks increasingly like no, a Catholic can't support Obama. And as a matter of political fact--well, that's starting to look like no, as well, isn't it?"

Of course, it's better to earn this conclusion after following Bottum's extended analysis.

If you don't agree with Bottum's conclusion, please at least read the entirety of his piece before objecting.

Biden bad, Palin good, for Catholic vote

Biden bad - the author claims that 55 bishops have responded to Biden thus far?!

Palin good - note that regular Mass attendees choose against Obama more often.

Bishops invite presidential candidates for a sit-down

They're saying "stop on by!":

Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have invited both major party presidential candidates to meet with them before the election, reportedly to discuss social issues. The bishops who would attend any such meeting are chairmen of USCCB committees on pro-life issues, education, migration, international affairs and communications.

A spokeswoman for the McCain campaign told the Wall Street Journal that the Republican senator wants to accept the invitation, but does not know if he can fit a meeting into his schedule.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Media Director of the USCCB, confirmed to CNA that neither candidate has accepted the invitation yet. (CNA)

As I've noted before, McCain has squeezed-in meetings with several bishops during his journies across the states. Obama? Not-a-one (that I've seen reported, anyway).

Again, this really makes me wonder about the sincerity of Obama's Catholic outreach, when he himself refuses to pursue a meeting with our bishops and the head of his Catholic outreach committee refuses to debate any notable Catholic representatives.

Basically, it makes me think they just want our votes, not our input.

Picture: The Obama bumper sticker you won't see

Jeff Miller heard about the Obama campaign rolling out a line of "faith merchandise", and added his own:

And that's just a sample.

"Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

For a very even-handed treatment of the question, read Mark Stricherz in America magazine.

Ph/t: Margaret Cabaniss of Inside Catholic.

Video: Born Alive Truth (+ links/commentary)

BornAliveTruth.org is trying to spread awareness about Obama's record of voting (four times) against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. BornAliveTruth just released a $350,000-funded TV spot:

I thought it interesting that the partial-birth abortion survivor's name is Gianna. Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is perhaps the most famous pro-life saint of the 20th century. I wonder if there is a connection.

Jill Stanek, who is deeply involved in this issue, updates us on the initial Obama-camp response:

"We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine Roe. Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with legalized abortion."

By way of comparison, note this observation by the TV spot's accompanying press release:

"Legislation identical to the proposed Illinois law was passed by the U.S. Senate (before Obama became a US Senator) by a vote of 98-0. This included even the most adamant pro-choice Senators."

Obama has tried to claim that the Senate legislation was not "identical", but the facts simply do not support his claim, as I blogged previously. In fact, he went so far as to call those who disagree with him about this factual matter "liars." Calling truth-tellers "liars" never wins points in my book.

Jill Stanek isn't letting Obama's media team confuse the issue, and says "Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points." Until they respond to those forthrightly they simply haven't got a case. We're still waiting on that one.

Now, in the interest of fairness - because I do believe the facts are on BornAliveTruth's side when it comes to this contested issue - Reproductive Health Reality Check mounts the best defense it can. (RHRC is ultra-liberal in its promotion of abortion, contraception, etc.)

I contend, however, that all RHRC succeeds in doing is to demonstrate that Obama vigilantly safeguards abortion rights in any and all circumstances. The supreme "right" to abortion-on-demand is a core value of his that trumps all other human rights issues, and it is, moreover, an issue intimately wrapped-up in the "politics as usual" of the Democrat party that he constantly claims to have moved beyond.

Either way, BornAliveTruth makes an important point.

update: thanks to a reader who notes that FactCheck.org also vetted this controversy extensively. From my reading, it seems to me an unfair claim to say that Obama "supports infanticide." I do think, however, that it is clear he is prepared and committed to defending abortion to its extreme limit (e.g., you can kill a child as long as it has not yet taken a breath outside its mother's womb).

Moreover, FactCheck.org does point out that Obama and his surrogates have essentially switched their explanation in regards to the motivations and details surrounding Obama's votes.

What happened? My take: A junior state senator played local Democrat party politics to the advantage of the moment and is now trying to retroactively gloss-over his decisions when appearing in a national spotlight, with a national election at stake.

Again, either way, BornAliveTruth makes an important point.

update 2: Stanek responds:

"... if you listen to the audio recently released [link includes transcript] of Obama's 2002 SenateFloor speech on Born Alive, you can come to no other conclusion than that he supports infanticide.

In the clip he admits babies may survive abortions but a 2nd physician shouldn't be called to assess and resuscitate the baby because it would place a "burden" on the "original decision" of the mother to abort. What else is that if not supporting infanticide?"

Obama's point is this (and it takes some effort to glean what he is saying): providing a safety net of a second doctor to ensure that children accidentally born alive during partial-birth abortions would "burden" the women's decision to abort her child ("how?" one might ask). What Obama is worried about preserving is the absolute "right" of the woman to not have a live child on her hands, one way or the other, once she has decided to have an abortion.

The darker insinuation one could make is that in fact Obama does not want a second doctor around keeping a watchful eye out to ensure that the original doctor does not break the law by withholding life-sustaining treatment from a live-born infant.

Obama campaign rolls out line of "faith merchandise"

Aimed broadly at Christians, but more specifically at Catholics:

The Obama campaign is preparing rolling out a new line of “faith merchandise” – the latest move in an ambitious effort to win over religious voters.

“Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….” says Obama Deputy Director of Religious Affairs Paul Monteiro in an e-mail obtained by the Beliefnet Web site.

Both campaigns have been making a major push for the Catholic vote, which has gone to the winning presidential campaign in every race since 1976, except Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid.

Beliefnet reported that "Clergy for Change" and "Pro-Israel Pro-Obama" merchandise will soon be offered. (CNN)

Of course, there are other stickers to be had out there.

With less than 50 days to go until Election Day, watch for things to heat up - fast. It's a changed game: "For 1st time this election, more Americans think McCain will win."

Strange that the Obama campaign should be doing all this merchandising distribution, while staunchly avoiding any opportunity to dialogue with the leaders of the Catholic church.

McCain has met repeatedly with various bishops during his travels, and I'm sure Obama has had similar opportunities but has turned them down. The infamous "Pelosi Timer" is at 10 days and counting. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to to any of the fourteen bishops who have criticized his public defense of abortion and he skipped out on the installation Mass of his own local bishop.

Oh wait, not so strange at all, really.

Yes, the DNC changed their abortion platform - they made it worse.

One doesn't have to go far in the current abortion debates to find people using the Democratic National Committee's "new language" on the topic of choice as a justification for claiming that the DNC is pro-life "in its totality" or something along those lines.

Well, I decided to read the DNC's platform and confirmed that, yes, they have new language ...

... and it's worse than what they had before.

Even John Kerry's "moderated 2004 platform included a plank stating that the party sought to keep abortion legal, but make it "rare", a formulation of the Pres. Bill Clinton era." (source)

The word "rare" has been eliminated from the 2008 platform, and its place, these chilling words added:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe V. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Richard Land correctly notes that "These words taken together are about as inclusive an assertion of an absolute right to abortion as the English language is capable of mustering."

He also points out "No wonder that NARAL Pro-Choice America rhapsodized that the new platform language reaffirmed “in the strongest of terms” the “Democratic Party’s solid commitment to a woman’s right to choose.”

(Radical feminists are happy, too: "I'm personally really excited to see them mention the ability to pay, since the Hyde Amendment has been such a huge barrier for low-income women and women of color. This is more progressive than I might have expected.")

Simply put: you can't be more pro-abortion than the language of the DNC official platform.

"But wait!" people will reply, "... what about the subsequent language claiming that health care and education will help reduce the need for abortions?"

Sure, that is in there, too. But that's not the argument that gets thrown around: what people actually claim is that the DNC's new platform is more "moderate" on abortion, even "more pro-life." But in fact, if words mean anything, the DNC has actually "accomplished the impossible: they have moved to the left on abortion", in the words of Naomi Riley.

Nor can I be assuaged by the DNC proposal to reduce abortions through better "health care" and "education".

For by education the DNC means concretely their vision of "sex education", which often is reduced to instruction in "safe sex" practices which promote attitudes conducive to more, not less, unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives, which are inherently offensive to Catholic sensibilities and against Catholic teaching.

Furthermore, these "education" initiatives frequently resist letting women receive the type of education that includes, for instance, ultrasounds of their growing infants (see picture above).

My question, then: how exactly has "lack of education" been a constitutive cause of abortions in America? And how possibly could their proposed "educational initiatives" significantly reduce them?

Finally, the argument that the DNC is more against abortion than ever before because they wish to reduce the economic occasions for abortion is also a red herring in my opinion. To paraphrase Richard Garnett, we must not settle "merely for trying to put in a better economic position those who hold the fate of the defenseless in their hands."

My question, then: is not the actual intention of the DNC to make all abortions simply chosen, instead of chosen in a pressured way? How will removing one source of pressure eliminate the many pressures (most of which are non-economic) that help drive women to abortion?