L’Osservatore Obama.
At the very least you’d think the Vatican’s unofficial newspaper (but whose views are taken as gospel about the Pope’s) would not fall for the same-old, same-old stuff that MSM’s are in the United States—and be fawningly infatuated with Barack Obama. Especially since about 80 U.S. bishops found the guts to stand up to him on abortion. But that’s the way it is—and it would indeed be lovely if Benedict would serve up a pink slip to the paper’s editor.
Item: two articles…on Obama’s first 100 days and his Notre Dame speech…sounded like the Mediterranean edition of the cuddly “New York Times.” On April 29 the headline was “The 100 Days that Did Not Shake the World” with the copy stating that the new president is not as radical on social issues as was expected—neglecting to point out Obama’s record as a state legislator in killing the Born Alive bill, thus depriving dying infants from botched abortions even the common decency of nutrition and comfort. Nor was there a solitary word about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that Obama promised Planned Parenthood he would sign.
Further, the story failed to mention that the Obama administration has made “good” (an ironic word) on fulfilling 10 of 15 issues on the agenda pro-abort organizations submitted to him last December—such as turning back the Mexico City Policy which now allows funding of abortions abroad, reversing the Bush policy so as to funnel funds to the UN Population fund and appointing a pro-abort Catholic, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as HHS secretary, Sebelius having been advised by her bishop, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kans. not to present herself for Communion because of her pro-abort cheerleading record.
Reporting Obama’s talk at Notre Dame, the paper gave it an enthusiastic thumbs-up, not mentioning that 80 U.S. bishops criticized the university for inviting him. Believe it or not the editor, one Gian Maria Vian insisted his coverage of Obama was okay—declaring that Obama has convinced him he is “not a pro-abortion president.” Vian said he “didn’t sense” the newspaper has views different from those of Benedict XVI.
Ergo: Some weeks ago I boasted that the Pope follows his morning Masses by a breakfast of rolls, coffee and a cargo of reading including “The Wanderer,” this nation’s longest running national Catholic weekly. My recommendation: Keep on reading “The Wanderer” but check out carefully your own newspaper and make a note to get rid of editor Gian Vian.
How Catholic Is Sonia?
As I have consistently noted, the misnamed “mainstream media” are absolutely no good on covering religion—especially Catholicism….and particularly locally. Chicago’s silly post `60s delayed flower-girl, Cathleen Falsani of the “Sun-Times” is off the religion beat Deo gratias. But over at the “Tribune,” their blog columnist Manya Brachear is still misleading people from her lefty bent. Yesterday she wrote something that will indubitably get her a pat on the back from Catholic Bruce…Bruce… what’s his name, the editorial page editor who has the Nuremberg philosophy (“I was just following orders”), taking down in stenographic fashion orders from the business office to endorse Obama.
Anyhow, dear Manya did a typically biased opinion piece yesterday pondering how Christian pro-lifers who follow the injunction “Choose Life” can tolerate an assassin who did in George Tiller. That’s par for this flaky liberal, getting her points in by linking the movement with the murder while utterly forgetting to record that a Muslim convert who has deep animosity for the U. S. basis his following of Mohammad shot two soldiers in Little Rock, killing one, an Army recruiter in Arkansas. It’s significant that dear Manya’s Messiah, Obama, issued a statement condemning the murder of Tiller by a pro-lifer but gave not a mention to the killing of the Army recruiter—despite the fact that yesterday he had a golden chance to do so with the announcement of a new secretary of the army. Manya didn’t work that into her column because she is a leftwing propagandist and cannot be expected to cover the news or include items which don’t fit her preoccupations.
If Manya were a creditable journalist…and if Bruce…Bruce what’s his name…was anything but a slavish lackey he would have insisted that she tie the Muslim killing with the Tiller killing. And if anyone covering the confirmation of Sotomayer were competent, he/she would ascertain Sotomayer’s religious bent. It’s an item of some interest since the media are promulgating the fact that if confirmed Sonia will be the sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court.
And if Sonia were a true Catholic, her views on abortion would be in opposition. But media never wonders—and of course Manya doesn’t have a clue. Instead, they keep prattling that she is a “Catholic.” “Catholic” means absolutely nothing in this discourse: it’s the kind of Catholic she is. Well, I’ll help. Dear David Axelrod’s office of propaganda has it that she’s a Catholic, the White House saying “Judge Sotomayer was raised a Catholic.” Then it adds—but the media which don’t believe much in religious observances anyhow didn’t catch it—“…and attends church for family celebrations and other important events.”
Oh. “Family celebrations and other important events.” Orthodox Catholics are required to attend Mass on Sundays, people. That means what it says. What are the “other important events?” Christmas and Easter presumably. Insufficient. It is almost a dead certainty that Sotomayor is what Catholics call “a fallen away.” Which means that very likely she is not pro-life—although to be sure there have been pro-life rulings that have come down from her. Good speculation story for Manya the religion reporter—but she’ll not do it for two reasons…first she has never thought about it and is invincibly ignorant of the implications…and second she is a hopelessly biased lefty who has never contemplated that there is a rationale to be pro-life.
If she were an objective reporter she could write that in 2002 Sotomayor upheld the Bush policy of withholding taxpayer dollars from groups that promote abortion overseas…that two years later she sided with Connecticut pro-life protesters, defending their rights to sue police for using excessive force against them in their demonstrations…that she ruled for illegal immigrants who were fighting deportation to China because of its stringent forced abortion and sterilization policies. But I’m not sure Manya would write this even if she knew it…because why not? Because she would then be consumed with an inner worry that by God Sotomayor might in fact be a closeted pro-lifer in the same way the Souter was a closeted pro-abort. Better to play it the way the White House wants it to be played.
See, these things get in the way of fair coverage when you’re a committed leftwing ideologue.
Which is as dishonest as media playing with the nonsense that Sotomayor is a Catholic when she’s a fallen away…just as they constantly reiterate Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago when he was a lecturer which is definitely not the same status as professor…repeating also that he has been a deeply ingrained lawyer when he was so deeply ingrained he allowed his law license to expire. And as media lay down, rolled over and wanted its tummy rubbed by refusing to report that Obama has an extensive knowledge of Muslimism. In reward for keeping that quiet, they helped him win. And now…lo and behold…Obama’s State Department says preparatory to his meeting in Saudi Arabia that…guess what?...Obama has an extensive knowledge of Muslimism.
Ask not why people aren’t reading the “Tribune.” The answer is that the paper is replete with Bruce Dolds (there I finally remembered his surname) and Manya Brachears…in every important place but one.
You have once again lied about Obama's status at the U of C. He was a senior lecturer, and according to the university's web page, that is the equivalent of professor. He was offered tenure, but turned it down. You cannot criticize others for not being truthful as you continue to lie.
ReplyDelete