He either lied or he is inept and got duped.

Pick one (or both).

Obama lied and babies died.

Any surprise there?

Guys, guys… where’s the trust?  This is just the first step of the master plan of covering abortion costs for more and more people (mainly minorities, who disproportionately make up the abortion market) in order to make abortions more rare and decrease their numbers.  Trust me on this, Obama said it himself.

And sorry to double-post, but Jimmy, that picture is priceless.

So Obama lied. Any wonder there? This guy is the worst president since Carter, let’s just hope that his term will run as long as Carter’s

Yes, he lied and continues to lie.  I pray that the president and all elected officials will RESPECT LIFE from the moment of conception (the moment life begins) to natural death.

How long will it be before health care workers will be forced to do or refer for abortions or be convicted of a federal crime?

What the general public is not aware of, is that most major insurance companies cover abortions, so it’s not only your tax dollars that are paying for abortions, it is also your private insurance premium dollars that are also paying for them.  Why don’t more citizens kick up a fuss about that?

Ah, yes, and what about that wonderful Catholic senator from PA, Bob Casey, who arranged the ‘compromise’?  Did he lie?  Was he duped?  Was he bought? Or is he just spineless.

First, this isn’t Obama’s doing. Do you really think he’s consulting with each state on their health reform initiatives? And secondly, and more importantly, page 2077 of PPACA prohibits the preemtion of state laws regarding abortion. In short, Pennsylvania (or any other state) may deliberately or accidentally leave out “language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason,” but a simple law suit will highlight the error and the state will have to submit to the federal law, which does contain all the necessary language against abortion funding.

Why, I’m shocked, shocked…See how you can spin the issue? But Congressman Stupak is retiring this year. How do you deal with the knowledge that you have sold out your principles and voted against your conscience? Well, a patronage appointment will soften the blow. And the news media will be supportive.

Catholics, wake up. Don’t be chumps in November.

Not only did he lie here, but he lied about mostly all the things he claimed he was going to do when got into the White House. 
This man is a Socialist and he has surrounded himself with just about every type of Communist or Socialist one could muster. 
Fellow Americans, we must stand up and take our Country back.  If we allow this croud to continue in power we will lose our Great Country..

God bless America.

“Did President Obama lie?” - Do bears go in the woods?
—-
“…the worst president since Carter.” – Carter was (and is) wrong, not evil…

Just as important is the truth…Did he lie in his speech at Notre Dame when he said that decisions on bio-ethics would be made   based on SCIENCE AND ETHICS.
SCIENCE has proven that a child nurtured in its mothers womb is every bit an innocent human being as a child nurtured at its mothers breast.
ETHICS does not permit killing an innocent human being .
What about it Mr. Obama?Did you mean what you said?

Of course he lied..! But you can bet your little blue/pink booties that his supporters will decry that fact…They want what they want..and it looks like they MIGHT get it,ie., the dissolution of the United States, which it is pretty clearly what he is going for. ..NO ?

All through out this administration the mantra is, the ends justify the means.

Why are we surprised?  We reap what we sow.  I’m sorry to say we have minimalist Catholics in positions of power and many more who put them there.

Raymond G..You are right. It really gets under my skin.

Of course Obama lied.  There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.  There used to be, but not anymore.  Anyone who is actually pro-life has already abandoned the Democratic Party.  That doesn’t mean they’re Republicans.  Just not Democrats.

Ramond G. is so right and thats so sad…  most of us knew what Obama was going in but we here in Michigan had hope in our supposedly “prolife democrat” Bart Stupak, but when he turned out to be such a fraud we came to the conclusion therte’s no such thing as a pro=life democrat…......

When pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Mission Viejo CA had a televised hour long interview with Obama, one on one, turned the question to abortion, he asked the Democrat Presidential nominee the following question.  “When do you think a baby should be given human rights?”

Obama gave a couple preliminary comments about science and then religion and finally answered, “The answer to that is above my pay grade.”

Here is this highly touted Harvard graduated Constitutional lawyer, editor of Harvard Law Review – and he doesn’t know when human rights should be bestowed on a baby?
Here’s this black American candidate for President, the first one ever nominated by a major party, and he hasn’t heard of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?  Right then and there I knew he was a liar.

But what really bothers me about the question and his answer is – why didn’t Cardinal George, the head of the Archdiocese of Chicago (Obama’s chosen city after graduating to start community organizing), and the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, write the Democrat elected nominee for President to ask for a clarification of what he meant by his not knowing when human rights should be given to a baby?  As the leader of the Catholic Bishops in the U.S., I would have thought that was an appropriate question to ask on behalf of all of us Catholics so that we would have clarity on this man’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to a baby’s right to life.  I don’t know of any bishop who asked Obama for a clarification to his answer.

Gosh, I’m surprised.  The very concept of Mr. Obama lying like a rug is something I never considered.  Thanks to CINO Bart Stupak for making it all possible.

Did President Obama lie?  Well Duh.

That’s what you get for voting for a pro-abortion marxist, America.  What a disaster.  I knew who he was years ago.  He’s doing exactly what he said he would do.  I’m ashamed of my countrymen who voted for this evil man.

Yes, he lied.  And now he will lie about lying.  And since the MSM will spin it for him and he know he’s likely a single-term president anyway, he’ll just do whatever the heck he wants.

Paul Schwab, spoken like a Thomas Paine - but this time there are millions of Thomas Paines if one has eyes to see and ears to hear.  Another thing, the circumstances have changed.  Then, it was to be win man’s freedom and independence.  Now, it is to keep man from being enslaved by a megalomaniac and associates.

Yes, again Obama has been caught as a liar!  When will the left wake up?  Unless they believe in a man who lies?  Good luck with that because you will need it!

I wonder what the infamous Sister Sheehan thinks now?  Was she duped by Obama?  Nope - she knew and what he wanted fit in with her own agenda…and she received a pen from him…a pen as a payment for permitting the slaughter of millions of more babies in the womb????

Worse President since Carter? Worst since Pierce, and he just might take the title of worst from him.

Randy, it is his responsibility to ensure that legislation he signs does not contradict what he says it does. He said federal funding would not be spent for abortions, and the law clearly does not prohibit,but rather encourages it. Either this was his plan all along, or he is inept.

He lied and the blood of the innocents is in the hands of all those who voted for him, especially those “Catholics” who see abortion as an issue as any social issue.

It’s realy great to see so many truly THINKING people on this blog. When I ask my family whether Obama lied..they need “proof” in order to disbelieve him…Since I am an eldderly citizen, and euthanasia is an issue..do you think I am hijacked..or what..?

Yes, he did.  But why are we surprised?  He has assembled the most pro-abortion cabinet in history, stocked sadly, with counterfeit Catholics who support abortion.

It all just goes to confirm Rep. Joe Wilson’s insight.  Is Obama a liar?  YES.

Obama is nothing more than a Planned Parenthood Puppet.  I wonder how much campaign dollars Obama received from Planned Parenthood so that they could push their agenda in Washington.  His Supreme Cour Justice nominee’s speaks for itself….

Where are the comments from those who put him in office - either justifying his “leadership” or apologizing to the country for this disaster that is just getting started.

Aimee sez: Not only your tax dollars that are paying for abortions, it is also your private insurance premium dollars that are also paying for them.  Why don’t more citizens kick up a fuss about that?

I think this fuss has not been kicked up until recently (and it is being kicked up) is that, also until recently, Americans were not FORCED under penalty of law to pay insurance premium dollars to private health insurers, whereas—obviously—we’re forced to pay income taxes. Of course, now we’re being forced to carry insurance, too. This is why, if I recall correctly, many states have legislation pending to restrict even private insurers in their states from paying for abortions (enough of a kicked-up fuss for ya?).

As for (income) taxpayer-funded abortions: I guess the only morally licit course of action now is to cease having any income. No income = no taxes = not paying for taxpayer funded abortions (I guess? Not sure how that works. Probably inadvisable in any case). If they want a collectivist welfare state, I say we give ‘em one! (Or something. Don’t actually do this).

Jimmy,

I respect your intellect and scholarship, however your mixing of politics and morality makes you appear extremely enigmatic.  I know that you are “conservative”, not only in a moral sense but in your political views, but as you are clearly are aware, conservative positions and the Republican party are as anti-intellectual (bordering on just plain-old “dumb”)and are circular in nature. 

Here you have a belief that state-sanctioned killing (the death penalty) of human beings is acceptable punishment for serious crimes and should be legal. And I have yet to see you rail against this and yet you are up in arms against nuanced and legally vague wording of what constitutes federally funded abortions.

And then you play the typical Republican smear tactic by your title:  “Did Obama Lie on Abortion?”.  For crying out loud Jimmy, why do you get the worst of the racist WT to comment about the President in such a reprehensible way?  How do you reconcile this behavior?  Have you lost your conscience?

Look at these replies:“I’m ashamed of my countrymen who voted for this evil man”, “This man is a Socialist and he has surrounded himself with just about every type of Communist or Socialist one could muster”, etc. 

I recognize that you, Jimmy, did not write these comments but YOU KNEW that these would be made.  If one commenter went even further and let say (hypothetically) that they made a death threat against the president, is it the same as you doing it?

So let’s go back to your original question about federally funded abortions.  If a federal worker decides to have an abortion, she has just received a federally-funded abortion.  Yes, we taxpayers have footed the bill for taking the life of a human being.  How many of these happen a year, 100,000+? A million? Who knows, unless there’s a law that states that federal employees are prohibited from having abortions, the federal government is DIRECTLY funding abortions with our tax dollars.  This is not some obscure technicality buried in US law, but an explicit expenditure for abortions.

Which leads me to the second issue:  even if the recent health care legislation directly made elective abortion a component of federally funded plan, that does not mean that this president or congress is opening a Planned Parenthood clinic within every US Post Office.  There is the individual choice, you know, the great gift from God called “Free Will” that guides every the person’s behavior, both good and bad.

A women who wants an abortion is going to get one.  Legally.  The question is a couple more rungs up the latter now, isn’t it?  Outlaw abortion altogether and then we’re making real progress.

Jimmy, please stick to Catholic apologetics and away from republican talking points.  I’ve always admired your work and I believe you are truly gifted.  But when I see your anti-Obama demagoguery I say to myself, “why should I expect a guy named Jimmy Akin to ever like a guy named Barack Obama.  Like oil and water, white vs. black, educated vs. soundbite politics, etc., etc.”

“conservative positions and the Republican party are as anti-intellectual (bordering on just plain-old ‘dumb’)and are circular in nature.”

It seems to me that this facile dismissal of all conservatives and Republicans is as intellectually lazy and dishonest as is the dismissal by certain conservatives of all progressives as “unAmerican”, “haters of America”, “Communists”, etc., accusations one often hears. Certainly, some progressives are among the “hate and blame America first crowd,” are disloyal, and wish to see our country come to grief and disaster so that they and their party can take over and turn it into another Peoples’ Republic. But it is unfair and downright silly to claim that all progressives stand for treachery and destruction of our nation’s founding principles.

Maybe one day more progressives will wake up to the fact that, just as there are some patriotic progressives who actually love the United States and want what is best for our country, there are intelligent and accomplished conservatives and Republicans. I hope they do so; it would help us to move toward a more civil society.

“As for (income) taxpayer-funded abortions: I guess the only morally licit course of action now is to cease having any income.”

Actually, Victor, one only needs minimal adjusted gross income, as I believe the current statistic is that 40-50% of all filers pay no taxes.

The president likes nuance. If someone asked him to his face on this, he’d nuance his way right out of being an outright liar, much like the clever school age child…Further, people projected onto him what they wanted to believe because enough of his slate was kept blank/vague during the election.

“As for (income) taxpayer-funded abortions: I guess the only morally licit course of action now is to cease having any income. No income = no taxes = not paying for taxpayer funded abortions.”

Saints Zachary and Elizabeth, parents of Saint John the Baptist, earned income and paid taxes to Caesar, even though his Roman troops sometimes defiled the temple (by entering its sacred precincts). The Jewish populace sometimes rioted over these defilements. Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary earned money on which to live, to support the holy Child, and had to pay taxes on that income to Caesar also, even though Roman troops sometimes brutalized good Jewish citizens, and even though some of that tax money was bound to make its way into the coffers of the traitorous and adulterous fox, King Herod.

We have to earn money, and we have to pay taxes. I like to work a part-time job, and do as much home maintenance, cleaning, and cooking for ourselves as I can, instead of paying someone else to do it. The goal is to stay out of the next highest tax bracket, while not doing without. Stay home, do it yourself, make it, reuse it, recycle it: you can’t keep from giving some money to a federal government that is increasingly out-of-touch with the values of decent, hard-working Americans, but you can put limits on how much of it there is for them to grab, without sacrificing too much of your own quality of life.

Mr. Ed seems typical of most opinionated Democrat “intellectuals.”  They think conservatives are stupid at best; evil at worst.  I discovered years ago that the only explanation that fits that Democrat way of “debating” or “discussing” an issue, or an opponent, is the psychological disorder called “projection.”  The definition of Projection is a type of defense mechanism. In projection, a person experiences an emotion or thought that they aren’t able to cope with (about themselves). So, instead, they perceive the thought or feeling as if it had come from someone else. One example of this mechanism is the person who is angry at a friend, but does not feel comfortable with feelings of anger in himself. He may instead deny these feelings and imagine that his friend is the angry one.

On the other hand, conservatives/Republicans don’t think Democrats are “evil” or “dumb,” they just think they are wrong.

Me. Ed, you are wrong.  Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows Obama is a liar unlike any seen in an American President before – plain and simple.  It became obvious to me when I heard Obama answer Pastor Rick Warren’s question concerning abortion in his hour long, one on one, TV interview during the campaign at his Saddleback Community Church in southern CA.  Warren asked him: “When do you think a baby should be given human rights.”  This Harvard graduated Constitutional lawyer, Editor of the Harvard Law Review said, “…the answer to that question is above my pay grade.”  What, this so-called “highly qualified Constitutional lawyer” never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment? He hasn’t stop lying since.  Perhaps you prefer a softer word - dishonest?

I am neither Conservative or Progressive, I classify myself as a Responsible.,..but on this issue I side with the Conservatives.President Obama at Notre Dame said that this issue should be decided by Science and Ethics. If you can believe him , the Conservatives will win.
Science and the most reliable medical technology repeatedly proves that a baby nurtured in its mothers womb ( exactly like a baby nurtured at its mothers breast )is an innocent human being.,not some other Genus, Species or Stuff… Ethics (even as distorted at Harvard) forbids killing innocent human beings.
Get this issue back before good judges, and the Conservatives will win!!!

@stilbelieve:

“Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows Obama is a liar unlike any seen in an American President”.  Three things: compare the legislative accomplishments of the 18 months of the Obama administration and 8 years of the Bush administration;  tell me President Bush never lied while in office (I can think of two: the case to go to war with Iraq and his choking on a pretzel); and lastly can you quickly list 4 or 5 lies President Obama has made while in office? 

Funny you assume that I’m a Democrat.  I am a registered Republican and I voted for President Bush in 2000.  I realized that it is more important to have a person with intelligence and the intellectual capacity to be president.  I doubted the John McCain or Sarah Palin could be high school president let alone be commander-in-chief of the world’s greatest armed forces while prosecuting two wars and a financial crisis on par with the Great Depression.  All started by our “honest” GW Bush…

@Conservative gal:
“Maybe one day more progressives will wake up to the fact that, just as there are some patriotic progressives who actually love the United States and want what is best for our country, there are intelligent and accomplished conservatives and Republicans. I hope they do so; it would help us to move toward a more civil society.”

You are correct and I’m in full agreement except I would venture that MOST progressives (99%+) love America as much as your most fervent conservatives.  When the right (especially the religious right) can come to grips that freedom-loving Americans can also be politically liberal or liberal on many social issues (like the teachings of the Catholic Church) than America truly can be a better nation.

Mr. Ed wrote: “freedom-loving Americans can also be politically liberal or liberal on many social issues (like the teachings of the Catholic Church) than America truly can be a better nation.”

But which social issues? Social issues like the call of the Church to exercise gentleness, forgiveness and humility in our dealings with others? To forgive wrongs readily and to seek to be reconciled is an important teaching of Jesus Christ that the Catholic Church really emphasizes. That’s one of our social issues: Would liberals have a problem with that?

There are Catholics BTW who don’t like that teaching of the Church, and don’t believe in it, and don’t want any part of it.

Another Catholic Church teaching on a social issue is that we must always have “a preferential option for the poor”, that we are to be mindful and compassionate toward the less fortunate, that we should open our hearts, hands, and pocketbooks to relieve their needs, and that we are to give “until it hurts at least a little bit.” That’s one of our social issues: Would liberals have a problem with that?

Or that the friendless, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger are to be welcomed, invited in, and made to feel a part of our community. That’s very Catholic, and one of our social issues: Would liberals have a problem with that?

(There are Catholics BTW who also don’t like these teachings of the Church, either, and don’t believe in them, and don’t want any part of them.)

Another social issue of the Catholic Church: That the disabled and the elderly, while not productive citizens, are nevertheless to be revered, treasured, loved, cherished, and cared for, for as long as God is pleased to see their earthly lives continue, and that families, communities, parishes, and society at large are obligated to assist them lovingly to live the most meaningful and dignified lives possible. Another Catholic social teaching.

Also, that the community and the state are obligated to provide necessary services, especially for the most vulnerable who cannot provide for themselves, and that Catholics are to pony up promptly and generously to assist with these programs.

(And, of course, some Catholics BTW don’t like these teachings of the Church, either, don’t believe in them, and don’t want any part of them.)

That all human life is sacred, from the moment God forms us in the womb, until the moment when we naturally draw our last breath; that it is never morally licit directly to attack the life of another human person, and that Catholics are morally obligated to speak out in defense of the rights of those who are most vulnerable - especially the unwanted unborn and the unwanted elderly.

And, life being sacred, the God-given means by which we participate in the transmission of life, genital sexual expression, is properly reserved for marriage, and an attitude of welcome toward the possibility of new life.

And, I know you won’t be surprised to learn, that, of course, some Catholics don’t like these teachings of the Church, either, don’t believe in them, and don’t want any part of them.

So which “social issues” are we talking about?

And which ones would you say liberals object to Catholics believing in and practicing in their daily lives?

C’mon Mr. Ed, you demacrats keep writing newspapers and calling into talk shows calling yourselves republicans who voted for Bush than you start calling him a liar etc…... the give-away is you always say something negative about Sara Palin even though she’s much more qualified to be president just because of her conservative record as a mayor and a govenor compared to Obama’s record as a community organizer for acorn and a Chicago politician

Don’t most states cover abortion under Medicaid (Federal Government funded health care) anyway?

“Don’t most states cover abortion under Medicaid (Federal Government funded health care) anyway?”

reminds me another question:

“What do you care about a few scratches and dings on the passenger side? After all, doesn’t your Corvette already have a couple of dents on the rear fender?”

Just because things are bad, doesn’t mean we should accept with complacency things getting worse.

We want things to move in the *right* direction, not the *wrong* one.

Most state Medicaid programs do cover abortions, but only under certain conditions (see below); however, the Federal government is now poised to increase opportunities for reimbursement for physicians who attack and kill the infant in the womb, (as well as infants targeted for such killing, who may be born alive.)

State Funding for Abortion under Medicaid
   
Funding under Hyde Amendment Only: (life of the mother, rape, incest):  Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances: Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).

All or Most Health Circumstances: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment: South Dakota (life endangerment only).

Source: National Abortion Federation http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Does he have to wait for hell for his pants to be on fire?

mr Ed of course… For you to think that only racist WT would comment on Jimmy’s blog is sadly wrong. I am a Mexican/American and I am appalled at our President. He is a liar and a conniving man. How can anyone think that he does not know everything that is happening with one of the hottest issues facing our nation within. This has been going on for years. He knows, they all know. It isnt until they get caught do they play dumb. Him and all his puppets ie. Nancy, Harry and now stupac are deceitful and cunning people!

Judge me, o God and plead my cause against a Godless nation, from deceitful and cunning men rescue me.
Psalm 43:1

Mr. Ed (a while back asked) “why should I expect a guy named Jimmy Akin to ever like a guy named Barack Obama?

I don’t know, why should I expect a guy named “Travis Lee Buford” to ever like a guy named Alan Keyes? But my neighbor Travis Lee has been a huge Keyes supporter for decades, and will support him, I believe, until Keyes wins the White House (or until Bubba Lee passes from this life, whichever comes first.)

Of course he lied, Jimmy. And it’s sad that our country has as its president a man of such poor integrity.

Why should a guy called Evandro dislike a guy called Barack Hussein?  Why would a guy called Ed libel a guy called Jimmy?

Augustine asks, “Why would a guy called Ed libel a guy called Jimmy?”

Maybe because labelling those who disagrees with you as “racist”, “homophobic”, “misogynist”, etc. is much, much less demanding than actually formulating and refuting arguments based on facts which actually pertain to the issues.

Instead of, you know, implying “you’re a racist! Nyeah-nyeah-nyeah!”

Or even, “you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny!Nyeah-nyeah-nyeah!”

@Conservative Gal:
“But which social issues? Social issues like the call of the Church to exercise gentleness, forgiveness and humility in our dealings with others? To forgive wrongs readily and to seek to be reconciled is an important teaching of Jesus Christ that the Catholic Church really emphasizes. That’s one of our social issues: Would liberals have a problem with that?”.  If I’m understanding political philosophies and practices between conservatives and liberals, I believe you are stating the political beliefs that liberals champion much more frequently than conservatives (if they every do).

“Another Catholic Church teaching on a social issue is that we must always have ‘a preferential option for the poor”, that we are to be mindful and compassionate toward the less fortunate, that we should open our hearts, hands, and pocketbooks to relieve their needs, and that we are to give “until it hurts at least a little bit.” That’s one of our social issues: Would liberals have a problem with that?”.  Again, liberals translate compassion in social spending (e.g., welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, immigrant rights, etc.) that conservatives wish to substantially reduce or eliminate outright.

Your response is extremely well written and is on par with my own personal beliefs.  I am a Catholic who believes that abortion is a crime against humanity, I have no disagreement with you or Jimmy Akin on this issue.

What I do have issue with is the notion that President Obama is a “liar”, in a sinister and dastardly manner that he would stoop to any legal means necessary, including the use of legislative slight-of-hand to ensure that abortion could be funded by the federal government.  If right-wing conservatives disdain Obama because of this issue, the far-left like him even less.  Read this article from Politico regarding this:

(excerpt) - “A reader forwarded this email that was sent by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to the activist group’s list late yesterday, which comes after a week of debate and push by anti-abortion activists over whether two states would allow elective abortion under the new health care reform bill.

But Richards is arguing the White House is now going further than the bill requires.

The key lines are these: “The Obama administration has decided that no woman in the new high-risk insurance pools will be allowed to obtain abortion coverage beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the woman). Not even if she pays for that coverage with her own money…

“...The president committed his administration to preventing any federal funds from being spent on abortion care. But the fact is, this announcement from HHS goes well beyond that. Nothing in the new health care reform law requires a ban on abortion coverage in the high-risk pools. No law passed by Congress forced this decision. The Obama administration has chosen to place a new burden on ill and medically vulnerable women seeking abortion coverage.”

Here’s the link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/0710/New_pushback_from_the_left__and_right__on_health_care_reform_.html

Several have posted here that they believe that Obama is a liar, etc.,. But so what.  Many have picked up on the “Jimmy Akin” vs. “Barack Obama” name reference.  One even posted a complete diatribe against my original post in a 5th grade, quasi-illiterate manner, complete with misspellings and poor grammar.

It is this point that I have disagreements with Jimmy Akin.  Pandering to the right-wing anarchists, who are not the brightest people in the world but are the most venomous haters is very disingenuous to anyone who opposes the Tea Party or is a supporter of this president.  When you press any of these individuals to support their claims with an example or two of lies (to at least provide a modicum of credibility), you simply get more harsh rhetoric. 

It is too bad that politics have been polarized with the election of this president.  Of course, the real issue that simmers below the surface is this president’s race.  Many undereducated whites resent the ascendancy of a non-white to the presidency.  This is something that will never go away, but needless to say is fueling the discord in politics and instead of working to make America succeed, these folks are hell-bent on bringing our country down so they can say “I told you so”. 

Jimmy Akin is far to educated and intelligent to play his politics this way, but yet he does it anyway.  As I’ve stated before Conservative gal, Jimmy Akin has been enigmatic in his political and moral views by exploiting the abortion argument in order to foment more hatred and misunderstanding that Fox News, Glen Beck and co. wish to do.  As Rush Limbaugh stated so eloquently on his radio show “I hope this president fails”.  My question to you is this: do you hope this president fails too?

Mr. Ed,

I recall then-candidate and Senator Barak Obama (D-Ill.) on camera stating that he would support the abortion of his own grandchildren if they should arrive at an inopportune time. (“I don’t want either of my daughters punished with a baby, if she makes a mistake.”)

Mr. Ed, no one who personally objects to the direct attack upon the life of the infant in the womb could say such a thing.

The man supports abortion as an answer to unwanted pregnancy.

This does not make him a devil from Hell, but it does make him someone with a very different view of what “the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” should mean for black, white, children, older people, the born, and the unborn from what I believe the Founding Fathers envisioned, and from what historic Christianity has taught, as well as what the Catholic Church teaches.

I pray that President Obama and all those who regard precious unborn little ones as “disposable” will one day sees the light and be converted to the God who created all of us. Meanwhile, I will oppose, in ways that are legal, honorable, and in accord with our American traditions, all holders of public office - white, black, yellow, red, brown, purple, or green - who explicitly tell us that the unborn infant in the womb may rightfully be swept out of existence at will. Yes, I will oppose such persons, politically, as I would oppose those who explicitly state that persons of color should be discriminated against, or that old people should be euthanized. These are WICKED things to advocate.

If WICKEDNESS comes out of the mouth, I don’t ask what color the lips are. I oppose the person - lawfully, peacefully, and honorably.

If you think that is “racist”, then I believe that word means something very different from what you think it means.

“I don’t want either of my daughters punished with a baby, if she makes a mistake.”.  Just saw that on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo).  I don’t believe he is advocating abortion, he is advocating abstinence and information.  Your quote is being distorted, much like Jimmy talks about when JWs and Mormons distort the Gospel.  His words are not the most eloquent on this, and he probably wished he would have chose other words.  But how has this translated into policy and legislation? 

In regards to racism, again you are not understanding.  I am referring to the Tea Party, the extreme right that is infecting the Republican party.  Those people.  Most are middle-aged white people who have a hard time with the concept of a black president.  From this thread, I would guess that some of these individuals may fall into this camp.

Libel and calumny come easily to you, don’t they, Ed? 

I’m a foreigner and I’ve been to Tea Party rallies, but I despise the other big-government party too, the GOP.  Sure, I cannot vote, but I still have a right to express my political views in rallies.

I’m not black, but that doesn’t make me a racist to sane people.  Heck, I’ve even fallen in love with a black woman!  I guess that the fact that that relationship didn’t work out tells you that I’m a racist for sure then, huh?

Ed,

Your ineptitude to make an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks is glaring and rather typical of Obama’s supporters.  This old and tired, not to mention vile and unchristian.

Augustine—Tea Party is significantly racist, there is no question about that.  The GOP is the worst of both major political parties.  So when a smart person votes, they are generally picking the least of the bad options. 

Our country is a mess not due to Obama, he hasn’t been around long enough to be properly evaluated.  However, the GOP under Bush, especially between the republican-controlled congress between 1994-2006 laid the ground work for the mess that we are in today.  Do you remember what Sept-Oct of 2008 were like?  Enjoy double-digit unemployment?  How about a decade of war?  What was the point of the Iraq war? 

OK enough of real history.  Just because you disdain historical facts, and your philosophical dislike of Obama’s centrist policies coupled with your love of black women certainly makes you an anomaly to the Tea Party, but that hardly makes me inept.

It’s funny how no one will ever retort a fact without any basis of even the simplest scholarship (y’all know how to Google, right?) but roll everything up a level and defend your position with the same old complaints about being a Bush hater and so forth.

Mr. Ed wrote: “‘I don’t want either of my daughters punished with a baby, if she makes a mistake.”.  Just saw that on YouTube . . . I don’t believe he is advocating abortion, he is advocating abstinence and information. Your quote is being distorted, much like Jimmy talks about when JWs and Mormons distort the Gospel.  His words are not the most eloquent on this, and he probably wished he would have chose other words.  But how has this translated into policy and legislation?”

What would “make a mistake” mean to the average, reasonable voter in this context?

What would “not to be . . . punished with a baby” mean?

“Make a mistake” would mean to have unprotected intercourse.

“Not to be . . .punished with a baby” regarding a young woman who has “made a mistake” would mean to eradicate the baby, to remove it, to destroy it, to annihilate it, to make it be no more.

Abominable, vicious stuff.

What would it mean for policy and legislation? It would mean, that, as we have already begun to see, that this would be a President, who like his predecessor Bill Clinton, works to forward the advance of one or more abominable and vicious practices within our national culture.

And you think that shouldn’t bother people?
.
.
Wow!
.
Just . . . wow!

Mr. Ed - before I present a list of three or four lies Obama has made as President that you requested, you have not defended his answer to Pastor Rick Warren’s question about abortion and when he believes a baby should be given human rights, in their hour long, one on one, TV interview.  Obama told Pastor Warren that he, Obama, does not have a “pay grade” high enough to know when a baby should be given human rights.  He is either the dumbest person to graduate out of Harvard as a Constitutional Lawyer, or he was lying that he doesn’t know when that should occur. 

Keeping in mind his lauded academic education, and his career as a Constitutional instructor at Northwestern U., an Illinois State Legislator, and, at that time, a sitting US Senator, which of the two, dumbest or liar, do you think is the most accurate description of him based on his answer?

You may be correct that the average person would understand what “making a mistake” means.  Being “punished with a baby” is a poor choice of words, especially in print.  But it does not necessarily translate to a pro-abortion stand nor does it mean that Obama would favor his daughter having an abortion.  If you can find a similar quote somewhere that confirms this, then perhaps you have a case.  Just because you equate being “punished with a baby” with having a preemptive abortion is nonsense.  What exactly did he mean with that statement?  Who knows other than Mr. Obama himself. 

You really need to see a policy and/or legislation, a position paper and repetitive public remarks to draw a conclusion such as yours.  Because I’m certain the President Obama has stated repeatedly that he opposes federally funded abortions, and has issued an executive order codifying that position. 

Tell me, are you a “birther” too?  (no pun intended)

@stilbelieve—sorry I haven’t replied to the Pastor Warren quote, yesterday was beyond busy with my family outing.  Very simple response from me:  you are correct, what a stupid answer Obama gave Warren.  I won’t defend that one because he really blew it there.  That does not mean is “stupid” in the sense you make him to be.  At any rate, this isn’t the first time he’s said something dumb and it won’t be the last.  But he’s our president and his success or failures usually translates into America’s successes or failures.  I believe President Bush was an abysmal failure as a president, but I never hoped that he would fail. 

But since we’re talking about dumb things presidents say, here’s a few funny ones that I’m sure you would not have taken literally when President Bush said them:

“One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people’s money to help prevent there to be a crisis.”—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”[10] — Poplar Bluff, Missouri; September 6, 2004

“I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” — Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008

Obama:

“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.”—Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

“What I was suggesting—you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith…”—in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying “your Christian faith,” which Obama quickly clarified.

“Let me introduce to you the next President—the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden.”—slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

“How’s it going, Sunshine?”—campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

Peace.

Mr. Ed asks, “Tell me, are you a “birther” too?”

I have no idea what you mean. I thought we were discussing Mr. Obama’s devotion to one of the Sins that Cries To Heaven for Vengeance, the Willful Murder of the Innocent.

Instead, you keep wanting to change the subject to me, and what I think and believe.

I can see the situation at your house:

Mrs. Ed: Honey, would you take out the garbage, please? I’m bathing the baby.

Mr. Ed: Are you so retrograde and unenlightened that you think it’s the man’s job is to take out the garbage?

Mrs. Ed: You’re sleeping on the couch tonight.

Conservative Gal: And there you have it, folks: what happens to Misters who, instead of discussing the issues, change the subject to attack and insult other people. Say goodnight, Gracie.

Good-night and good-bye. I am so done with people who can’t seem to stay focussed, so they attack others. Who needs that? I sure don’t!

THANKS BE TO GOD..THAT Obama could NEVER TEACH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS..! HE could NEVER qualify..Again..Thanks be to GOD…!

Oh C-Gal, lighten up.  I’m not being mean to you, honest.  A “birther” believes that President Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud and he is not constitutionally allowed to be president.  A significant percentage of Tea Party members believe that.  Being president is being responsible for more than just one issue. You do know that, right? Those who are able to vote get a chance to elect or remove a president, and it’s your choice. 

As I’ve stated before, the photo of President Obama at the top of this blog, while a bit humorous, was meant to be disrespectful and condescending in order to stir up the Obama haters.  I think Jimmy Akin enjoys ridiculing the President, and that’s his choice.  I just wish he would take critical social issues with much more seriousness and respect, as when he debates non-Catholics or when he spells out Catholic doctrine.  That’s always been his strength and calling, and I’ve admired him because of those gifts.  But politics… Jimmy has enough on his plate, he should just stick to religion.

Mr. Ed…spoken like an old nag..anyone wh disagrees with you is the “bad guy”..and YEAH..I’M A BIRTHER..!

Ed - I don’t think Obama is dumb.  I think he is a liar.  No Constitutional Lawyer graduating from any college, let alone Harvard, wouldn’t know when a human baby should be given their rights.  It isn’t a matter of “pay grade.”  I think he comes as close to being as cleaver and cunning as Satan as any human being I have ever observed in politics.  What do you think about his support for infanticide?

Infanticide means the intentional killing of an infant.  So no, he doesn’t support infanticide.

Mr. Ed -

You’re just as eloquent a speaker as Obama is… If abortion isn’t the intentional intent of doctors in that intended profession abortion which is a procedure that fully intends to kill the child in the womb, then what is it? And if you support that, then what does that make you a supporter of?

Quite simply, Obama is a supporter of the murder of children. Infants=children=those in the womb. To argue against this is to put yourself in opposition of science and God Himself. Therefore it is Infanticide and plain and simply murder… no wait… mass-murder! It can possibly also go so far as to classify it as genocide because it specifically targets a group of people that can all be classified under one heading and description. Abortion and supporters of abortion are no different, in fact even worse than, Hitler and the Nazis and every other genocide racketeer throughout history.

But I’ll give you one thing. Obama doesn’t support infanticide in that he doesn’t support killing every child in the womb, he just supports selective and optional infanticide… A more murder-at-your-convenience attitude.

Posted by Mr. Ed, of course… on Sunday, Jul 18:Infanticide means the intentional killing of an infant.  So no, he doesn’t support infanticide.

Then what do you think of his speaking against and voting against a piece of legislation in the Illinois Legislature called the “Baby Born Alive Act,” which passed and became law, that states that such a baby was to be given full medical care and treatment?

Mr. Ed sez: Tea Party is significantly racist, there is no question about that.

Evidence, please? We haven’t even seen the NAACP resolution (allegedly) condemning the Tea Party as racist because it hasn’t even been released yet (and won’t be for several months). Not that a resolution from the NAACP is ever, per se, evidence of anything, of course. Probably the best analysis of this “TeaParty = Racist” smear is John C. Wright’s latest fabulous essay.

Folks, whether the President actually intended that Obamacare would include abortion is merely incidental. It’s his clear policy orientation that is important, and Catholics should and must understand this clearly: Obama is pro-abortion. No doubt about it, slam dunk, turn out the lights and Katie bar the door Sure Thing. Proof? You could fill volumes.

Those who try to discern whether he lied on this or another issue are wasting valuable time and effort. This President will work as best he can for the preservation and protection of the right to elective abortion. Don’t waste your time trying to parse what he said on Feb 27 or whatever—just don’t be fooled a second time. See you in November 2010 and 2012, and Christ be with you.

Jimmy, the Pennsylvania thing isn’t true:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/16/national-right-life-committee/abortions-pennsylvania-paid-federal-dollars-not-so/

I still think we’ll see abortion under universal health care; but it looks like not yet.

Politifact is incorrect.  HHS’s own statement is that it will fund abortions under the exceptions of rape, inscest, and life emergency.  Even HHS’s statement needed to be revised because they stated incorrectly that the healthcare bill forbids aboritons.

Sorry, misread Polictifact.  Politifact is correct (to a degree).  M is incorrect about the characterization of Politifact’s statement.

Today, the composition of the supreme court is 9 Catholics, and 3 Jews (assuming Kagan’s confirmation).  The decision to overturn Wade v Roe will ultimately be there, if ever. 

Not from the executive branch.  Not even from congress.

I would suggest that people quit worrying about how much a president is for or against abortion.  I disagree with Phil and Jimmy over their myopic world view. If they are going to be taking a position to vote for president based on a single issue, that’s their business.  They hope that most people are sheep and will blindly follow this position into the voting booths. Jimmy plays on this by dumbing down his headlines and confusing facts with obscure findings based on the “gotcha” method.

Unfortunately for us Catholics, the supreme court could be 100% conservative AND Catholic, with a conservative congress and president, and Roe v Wade will still not be overturned.

Folks like Mr. Akin and Phil are making an all too-common mistake of mixing Catholic doctrine and politics over the abortion issue that their philosophy becomes hypocritical.  Because conservatives believe in the death penalty, they generally are anti-immigrant (until they realize the value of cheap labor), they don’t care much for the impoverished or middle-class, they tend to be racist and intolerant, that these truths become merely an inconvenience and are dismissed for the sake of the one-sided and all-supreme abortion issue.

Ed,

There you again painting your prejudices with a broad brush.  I’m a conservative, detest both big-government parities, regard the Tea Parties are a breath of fresh air, am against the death penalty,  and am an immigrant myself. 

Sorry if I messed up your mental cookie cutter.  Perhaps you should just remove your mental blinders.

Mr. Ed - what about Obama opposition to giving medical care to babies born alive.i.w., support for infanticide?

Christ is in the people and in those who fight for the justice of the liberation of the meek, that’s where Christ is - the true Christ, Our Father, the liberator of the poor on Earth, the supreme example of sacrifice for those who suffer.

Mr. Ed, does the above kind of fit what you’re trying to say is how a good Catholic should approach how and who to vote for?

@Augustine:  you are mixing demographics (who you are) with political beliefs (what conservatives and Tea Party stand for).

“Mr. Ed, does the above kind of fit what you’re trying to say is how a good Catholic should approach how and who to vote for?”

Let me pose you and Jimmy (and everyone else) this simple question.

If you voted for Obama, did you commit a sin?  <——your personal belief

What is the position of the Church?  What did the American bishops say?

Ed,

So you mean that Tea Party, a loose movement with no centralized roll of stands, as for racism???

You make some good points, some of which I agree with, such as the foolishness in expecting that politicians or justices will end abortion in the land, but others are quite nonsensical, if not prejudicial.

Mr. Ed: Wouldn’t the prudence of engaging in single issue politics depend on the issue? Couldn’t a candidates stand on the acceptability of genocide (for example) as a solution to social problems trump a whole host of other genuinely important economic and environmental concerns?

“Because conservatives believe in the death penalty, they generally are anti-immigrant (until they realize the value of cheap labor), they don’t care much for the impoverished or middle-class, they tend to be racist and intolerant, that these truths become merely an inconvenience and are dismissed for the sake of the one-sided and all-supreme abortion issue.” This epitomizes the contempt that “progressives” (should we ask where we are “progressing toward?) have for conservative people.  See, they can stereotype us all they want, ‘cause the MSM backs them up. It’s not “hate speech” or even ““bias.” It’s just the way it is.

But my question to Mr. Ed is: What issue is more important than a candidate’s commitment to the equality of every human life before the constitutional law of this republic? Remember the Dred Scott Decision?  Are we really so foolish as to think that the human status of a being with 46/47 chromosomes depends on the AGE (9+ months) or ADDRESS (outside the womb) of that individual? We have already decided that skin color is not determinative.  What will it be next? Ear lobe size?

Billy—yes, you are correct.  I would add another example such as the decision to end or continue a war among the list of single issues that could be the basis for voting on one candidate or another. 

Now to compare a candidate’s view on abortion when knowing that there is little chance of changing the law with a discreet position on something that a candidate could change, such as war or genocide, is wrong.

Genocide and war positions do have one major difference with the abortion position.  The decision to abort a fetus (a live human being, and yes, that is what I believe to be factual) is not dictated by a government or a single candidate.  It is an individual’s choice to have an abortion.  As of now, it is legal.  I’m not saying that it’s right, I am just stating a fact.

Government could change or create laws that could save the lives of 40,000 people a year.  This is the number of people who die annually as a result of no health insurance and/or the inability to emergency and preventative care.  The health care reform act was signed and every conservative in the US said the world was going to end if this legislation was enacted.  They also said that when Medicare was enacted (Ronald Reagan said that it would end democracy in the US), and when social security was enacted decades ago.

As for near universal health care, the republicans voted unanimously to oppose this.  Does this make the republican party the “party of death”?  OK—granted that’s an extreme label but it does seem odd that republicans can find a way to defend the status quo in the health care debate at the expense of human lives. 

If I’m correct, Jimmy falls into the camp that says we should have left the health care system alone.  Does that make Jimmy an advocate for killing 40,000 people a year?  I don’t think so, but if you were going to compare human deaths for the unborn vs. the born he would have a hard time reconciling the two.

Billy—I was responding to your first post when I read your next ones.  Quick response:  voting for Obama to me meant (1) reforming health care, (2) reforming the financial system and fixing the economy (3) a middle class tax cut, (4) ending the wars in the middle east, (5) improving our education system.  These are just some of the issues.  Obama has a long way to go and he may not get there, especially with republican obstructionism.  But I honestly believe he is trying.  Between the two major candidates, he was clearly the superior choice.

Mr. Ed - I’m just trying to understand what you other Catholics are saying.  I condensed it down to what it seems you are saying. 

Here it is again: Christ is in the people and in those who fight for the justice of the liberation of the meek, that’s where Christ is - the true Christ, Our Father, the liberator of the poor on Earth, the supreme example of sacrifice for those who suffer,”

Is it on target; close, or way off base?

Here’s a much more detailed and better description:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm

Com’on, M. ED, I haven’t got time to read an encyclopedia. 

Just tell me if what I sent you fits your concept of what a good Catholic’s properly formed conscience would look like going into a voting booth.  You know what yours was like going into that booth.  Does this paraphrase your thinking? Is it close?

Either I write an executive summary outlining the beliefs (which I won’t do) of the Catholic Church or you must read them at your leisure since my beliefs are the same as the Church.
Purchase a copy of the Catechism or read it here—>  http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Ed, if you won’t answer that question then why don’t you just point me to the biblical chapter and verse where Jesus instructed/directed his disciples/followers to get their governments to do what he instructed them to do themselves?  You certainly must have that.  I can then read His words and understand the directives better; there might even be a footnote that will help with the understanding.

You see, I’m a conservative and as you know, I can’t understand all that garblely gook the learned people who construct those “executive summaries” write.

So, please help me out.

Mr. Ed:

You continue to make the extremely poor and vapid conclusion that Obamacare was the ONLY solution to the uninsured problem, and then paint the Republicans who opposed it equivalent to pro-abortion Dems.  You just think of yourself as so clever, when if fact you’re just another liberal lemming.

Why don’t you try and remember that Obama and Pelosi completely blocked any Republican involvement in the Healthcare debate.  Obama, when questioned about it, replied, “we won.”  Clearly, arrogance has it’s place with this president.

Derek (channeling Jimmy),

The “We” Obama was referring to was the American people, not the republican obstructionists who made a half-assed attempt to reform health care.  And I don’t think I’m too far off the mark in the comparison to pro-choice democrats and anti-abortion republicans. 

I am opposed to abortion—read my earlier posts.  But I have to point out something to you that will surely have you condemn me even further.  Is it correct the republican party has co-opted the “freedom”, anti-government views of the Tea Party movement?  To me that means the government should not be intruding on peoples lives, the decisions they make, and so forth.  So how do you reconcile that position with the belief that government should prohibit a woman’s right to choose an abortion?  Now before you get your underwear in a bunch, that is a philosophical question, but unfortunately is based on reality.  To me that shows just how murky right-wing religious political ideology is. 

Ideally the only way abortion can be made illegal is perhaps a constitutional amendment, or some other form of specific legislation outlawing the practice.  In real practical terms, and as much as I’ve prayed over the hope the supreme court would overturn Roe v. Wade, I don’t hold out much hope. 

I recognize how frustrating the truth is to you and your fellow “conservatives”.  I don’t think I’m trying to be clever, it’s just simple common sense to me.  Your opposition to universal health care, and I assume if you were around when other important legislation was created (clean air act, civil rights act, Medicare, etc.) you MUST recognize that the Catholic Church endorsed all of these, yet you are vehemently opposed.  How can the republican party be home to Christians, especially Catholic Christians?  What solutions have they provided to America’s problems in the last 30 years?  Or since President Lincoln? 

And I don’t think that I’m making extremely poor or vapid conclusions regarding the health care bill you hate so much; I believe covering 36 million more people is better than only covering 6 million. 

I have personal reasons regarding my dad’s struggle with having to take a job to insure himself and my mom while he was suffering from heart disease and she with kidney disease.  Short version of the story is that his company relocated when he turned 55 and was unable to pay Cobra premiums after he got laid off, and had no choice but to work at a minimum wage job driving mentally challenged adults from 4:00 AM until 3:00 PM daily.  What he earned went to pay my mom’s insurance premiums and trust me, this health plan was nothing close to a Cadillac plan—there was a lot of out of pocket expenses and high deductible payments. 

You get my drift—these are the reasons that I believe we as Catholic Christians have a moral obligation to support social legislation that helps the less privileged and the sick.

While my input to this blog has upset you and others just because of politics, I was hoping to shed a little light on the morality that has left the discussion on health care in general. Jimmy just seems to be in opposition to the Catholic Church on many social issues these days.  And honestly, if you think I am trying to be clever, than Jimmy must be the world champion when it comes to cleverness.

Did Obama Lie? Are you kidding me? We have Communist Revolution going on in USA.

Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: “First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands.” And, “We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution…. We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence…. It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.’‘

Rykov, Lenin’s successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: “It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.’‘

Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: “The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends.”

And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.’‘

(from MARXIST FUNDAMENTALS by Prof. Libor Brom)

To: NCR Readers
From: Phil
Re: The Mr. Ed Colloquies.

Ladies & Gentlemen, please give this unedifying sidebar a rest. The topic is, Did Obama Lie on Abortion? Newsflash: liberals will say he did not, conservatives will say he did. The real point here is, can you in good conscience as a faithful Catholic support a leftist agenda that (I swear on a stack of Bibles) embraces abortion?

Mr. Ed is back and said,  “You get my drift—these are the reasons that I believe we as Catholic Christians have a moral obligation to support social legislation that helps the less privileged and the sick.”

Practically everything you said in your quoted words above I agree with; and I think the overwhelming majority of conservatives do as well because ALL studies consistently show conservatives donate a lot more money for charity than liberals do (Just look at our President and Vice-President’s tax returns in previous years, and the Democrats last two Presidential nominees’ returns).  But I have one exception to your statement and that is “Catholic Christians have a moral obligation to support social legislation.”

I’ve asked you before this question and you either ignore it or duck it.  Your quote, above, offers me an opportunity to ask it again.  A direct answer may close the gap between our thinking.  Here it is: Where did Jesus say in the Bible He came to get his disciples and followers to get GOVERNMENT to do the works He instructed them to do themselves?”  All the Sacraments can be related directly back to Jesus’ words and actions.  His commandments are very specific as well,“Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.”  So, where does he direct us to get government to do what he taught his followers to do themselves?

Phil: you do recognize that official Catholic positions are all over the political spectrum, don’t you?  You seem reasonably intelligent; how can you ask an oversimplified question like that? 

If you are asking me directly, I cannot claim to be doctrinally pure on either the right or the left.  Again, that is in line with Church teaching.

stilbelieve:  Without researching it, I’ll take you at your word that conservatives give more than liberals.  I think their are two reasons for it, one is that they have more disposable cash since conservatives (i.e. republicans) are generally more affluent.  Secondly, the US tax code encourages the wealthy to contribute by virtue of income tax deduction incentives.

Regarding your obtuse reference to scriptural depictions for the role of government, I can see what you are implying but I can’t quite understand how the two are related.  Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us further.

The one scriptural quotation I can offer you that indicates Jesus’ desire to be charitable (all the “leftist” legislation) is this:

From Matthew 25:31-46:

(34) “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. (35) For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, (36) I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

(37) “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? (38) When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

(39) When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

(40) “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

(41) “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

(42) For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, (43) I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

(44) “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

(45) “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Let the record show that Mr. Ed waffled on the answer to the (yes it is) simple question: Can you as a faithful Catholic support a leftist agenda that embraces abortion?

The only way you can get out of this corner is to say something like, “The rest of the agenda is so good it outweighs the evil of abortion.” Beware…this way lies much, much error. You’re in real moral danger there, Mr. Ed.

Phil,

I’ve stated before, I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION.  I do not support the (parts) of the “leftist agenda” that supports abortion.  I thought I made myself clear on that earlier?

Okay Phil, now it’s your turn.  Do you support the death penalty?

Mr. Ed, thank you.  I’ll respond to your second answer first since that was the most important question because it is the biblical source of your beliefs.  You correctly quoted Mt. 25:31-46 The Judgment of the Nations.

Here is what the footnote in my Catholic Bible says about Matthew Chapter 25 The Judgment of the Nations: 

“Chap 25, 31-46…The criterion of judgment will be the deeds of mercy that have been done for the least of Jesus’ brothers [40].  A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers.  Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc.  (35. 36) or a particular group of such sufferers?” 

It continues:

“Scholars are divided in their response and the arguments can be made for either side.  But leaving aside the problem of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christian, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel.  The criterion of judgment for all the nations is their treatment of those who have borne to the world the message of Jesus, and this means ultimately their acceptance or rejection of the Jesus himself; cf 10, 40.  ‘Whoever receives you, receives me.’”

So, Ed, the “stronger case” is that this chapter and these versus are referring to “Christian (sufferers), “probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching the gospel.”  This would be especially true if in hostile areas like Muslim nations, and communist countries.

his is from THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE – Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources and The Revised New Testament, Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and Approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference.  1989-1990 EDITION

Now, as for your first answer concerning wealth, charity donations and political party affiliation.  There are more millionaire and billionaire Democrats than Republicans.  And the overwhelming numbers of the “greedy, evil” Wall Street Executives are registered Democrats.  This you can google to verify, as well as studies of who donates more, liberals or conservatives, to charity.

Ed: Let me try to make this easier for you. When you elect a liberal Democratic President/Congress, you get an entire set of leftist policies. It’s not like a cafeteria where you can pick and choose, one from Column A, one from Column B, etc. When you support Obama, you are supporting a robust pro-abortion position, or Pro-Choice as they would call it. And it’s not just an ancillary, secondary issue for liberal Dems: it’s a centerpiece, a pillar, a dogma if you will. It is a game-changer, a deal breaker, for any faithful Catholic, who accepts the Church’s teaching that this is an unmitigated moral evil…sort of like murder.

Right now you’re trying to Stupak us who are following this thread. It’s not going to work.

And yes, we know: YOU DON’T SUPPORT ABORTION.

You just support those who do.

“When you elect a liberal Democratic President/Congress, you get an entire set of leftist policies.” - True

“When you support Obama, you are supporting a robust pro-abortion position, or Pro-Choice as they would call it.”  - not true. [Obama and this congress can’t or won’t change the legality of abortion.  It is a dormant issue from a legislative and constitutionality perspective for the time being.  If you can show me the position of the USCCB, the Magisterium, or any other official Catholic teaching that states voting for Obama is a mortal sin, than I will reconsider my position.]

“... any faithful Catholic, who accepts the Church’s teaching that this is an unmitigated moral evil…sort of like murder. ”  -  agreed.

You guys have been great, thanks for the dialogue on these issues.  I hope you don’t hate me or anything; I think you all are faithful Christians and I wish you all the best.  I’m going to conclude my contribution on this particular subject for now.  Please pray for God’s mercy on the souls of the mothers and their unborn children.

Thanks Jimmy Akin for your excellent work, especially in apologetics, and for allowing me to contribute to the discussion.

Regards,

Ed

Mr. Ed said, “[Obama and this congress can’t or won’t change the legality of abortion.  It is a dormant issue from a legislative and constitutionality perspective for the time being.  If you can show me the position of the USCCB, the Magisterium, or any other official Catholic teaching that states voting for Obama is a mortal sin, than I will reconsider my position.]”

The first two sentences are true, Ed, only because of the number of Catholics who go to church on Sundays and have given their votes and name identification to the Democrat Party, disregarding what they affirm they believe in reciting the Profess of Faith after the Gospel and Homily, and what they pray for in the Lord’s Prayer, the only prayer Jesus ever gave us, in which they pray for God’s will to be done on earth and not to be lead into temptation but delivered from evil.

You agree that abortion is evil.  You believe God is the giver of life.  You want God’s will to be done on earth.  You want to be delivered from evil.  The only thing left is to not be lead into temptation.  I think that church-going Catholics who still see themselves as Democrats have fallen for the temptation of thinking they are better than other people.  I think your comments, here, reflect those of most Catholic Democrats.  There is a feeling they have of being morally superior to me and others who have commented here.  To be Catholic and a Democrat is “better” than to be Catholic and Republican, or just a Catholic.  I believe their self-identity as a Democrat is greater than just being a Catholic.  That is why they can disregard their OWN WORDS in church in what they profess to believe and pray for on Sundays just several minutes before going forward to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

One last thing.  You outrightly dismiss Pope John Paul II’s statement to the LAY FAITHFUL, who said this about the reason you and other Catholics give for voting for Obama and the Democrat Party:

“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights…IS FALSE AND ILLUSORY IF THE RIGHT TO LIFE,…IS NOT DEFENDED WITH MAXIMUM DETERMINATION.” (1988, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), n.38).

As far as voting for Obama and the pro-abortion party being a mortal sin?  I’ll answer it this way.  There is only one sin God will not forgive according to the Bible - and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  When Catholics stand in Mass to affirm their belief “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,” and have given their endorsement by name and vote to a secular, worldly organization they know is diabolically opposed to what they said they believed standing in church – are they blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

This is the first tima qand possibly the last time I will read your paper.  One would hope that a Catholic newspaper would be civil and respectful to authority and asiduous in expressing the facts.  It is obvious to me atat you are trying to be the antithesis of the National Catholic Reporter which in the main replicates your crudeness; only in the opposite side of the issues.

What the Catholics want and need is responsible reporting of the facts , not hate mongering

Obama and Congress knew that his Executive Order had no authority to over-ride the law.  No President can legally change laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
His Exec Order was merely a ploy to try and deceive the public, and provide some cover for the heretics - both Catholic politicians and 80 Nuns who defied the teachings of the Church and the Bishops by supporting the pro-abortion funding health care bill.

When human life is not respected and pro-life at all stages, look for euthanasia next under the guise of rationing health care due to costs, and being humane.  The very young, mentally and physically handicapped, and elderly are all at risk.

The Democratic Party (majority) has become the “Party of Death”.  Some Republicans are guilty as well.

He lied.

Some people need to read the ‘CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
Ignorance of a sin can be sinful in itself;  (1791, 1792, 1801)
Each of us can have a responsibility for the sins committed by others, and that we can become accomplices in the sins of others through complaisance, etc.;  (1868, 1869, 2480)
“Social Justice” without “Subsidiarity” which protects the rights of the individual and family is wrong.  (1883, 1885, 1894, 2209, 2211)
Socialism, Communism, pure Capitalism, Collectivism, and excessive intervention by the Government are wrong.  (1883, 1885, 2425, 1907)
The Church is not to be confused with the Political Community, and only is to pass moral judgments in politics when the “fundamental rights of man” or the “salvation of souls” require it; (2245, 2246, 2257)
It is a moral obligation to Vote, and vote for the common good [as opposed to selfish motives].  (2240)

Of course he lied

F alla yall!! OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! yeh im so guud!

Hey all you Catholics who voted for the great pretender: Hows all that hope and change baloney working out for you?  ... oops can not say working with this add-ministration.

Speaking of real Hope and real Change I sure hope that the Bishops toss their old 34 page long “Voter Guide” and create a Single Sided One Page Only Guide listing only the “Non-Negotiable” issues that every practicing Catholic can and should support.

That would bring real change. We have the Lords word on it “... seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”