Dig This Doug.
Douglas Kmiec, the Catholic who once wrote classic legal literature on the necessity to name pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court and the need to overturn “Roe v. Wade”…yes, that same Doug Kmiec who now espouses the election of Barack Obama, the ex-state legislator who strangled Born Alive in its crib as Illinois senate judiciary chairman…I mean THAT Doug Kmiec has just…get this… written a laudatory statement congratulating a 6-member panel for “courageously” urging on the platform committee of Doug’s new-found Democratic party to praise reduction in abortions as good policy.
Well, on examination the committee wasn’t courageous at all: it merely touts increased federal programs for entitlements, universal health care, education, “income support,” adoption et al which can be rationalized to possibly slow the number of abortions, postulating the thesis that the more federal largesse the better for the unborn. However there was nothing said about ending Medicaid abortions with taxpayers’ money, nothing about the party’s past support of partial birth abortions, nothing about Obama’s steadfast support of infanticide via “Born Live.” This is what the language says:
It supports access to “family planning,” “age-appropriate sex education,” declaring that “such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby reduce the need for abortions.” The proposed platform adds that the Democratic party “strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child”—get that? The Democratic party is going on record as supporting a woman who wants to have a child. Is this “courageous” as well? Or did we imagine the party rejected mandatory abortions after one child as is enforced in the People’s Republic of China? Okay. It goes on record foresquare “as supporting a womanm who wants to have a child”—but adds a proviso. “…by ensuring access to and availability of, programs [READ FEDERAL] for pre-and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs.”
In his own statement praising his new party, Doug Kmiec proves his superior legal legerdemain. Get this. Let me parse it for you.
“I have been involved in this issue my entire professional career, as Ronald Reagan’s constitutional lawyer and head of the office of legal counsel for the Department of Justice.” JUST A LITTLE USE OF REAGAN TO BRING HIS SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS” TO THE FORE.
“I had numerous occasions to write and strengthen the briefing that was filed…when we asked the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn `Roe v. Wade.’” HE’S GETTING TO THE TRICKY PART NOW. LISTEN:
“One of the things I think is most significant about this platform is that it recognizes that there is more than one way to discourage abortion.” BRILLIANT, DOUG! OBVIATE THE ISSUE AND GO FOR MORE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITHOUT ELIMINATING MEDICARE ABORTIONS OF STIPULATING THE NAMING OF JUDGES WHO WOULD BE OPPOSED!
“We have been at the business of trying to find the elusive fifth vote on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years.” BUT YOUR CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, DOUG, VOTED AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS AND SAM ALITO. SO WHAT DID YOU DO, DOUG AFTER PARTICIPATING IN SOME OF THE ACTIONS DURING PART OF THOSE 30 YEARS? YOU JOINED THE OTHER SIDE, THAT’S WHAT YOU DID.
“We haven’t found it and even if we do find it, overturning `Roe’ would not save a single life but instead merely return the question to the states.” IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT SOME OF THE STATES…PERHAPS A MAJORITY…WOULD USE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO NULLIFY ABORTION RIGHTS, DOUG. SO YOU’RE GIVING UP! NICE LAD. MAYBE YOUR CANDIDATE WILL NOMINATE YOU FOR THE BENCH, INDEED THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH THE REPUBLICANS—WISELY AS IT TURNS OUT—DIDN’T DO.
“While that would be important, it is not intended and never was intended to close the American mind…” WELL OVERTURNING DRED SCOTT DID. DO YOU FIND MANY AMERICAN MINDS “OPEN” TO THE RETURN OF SLAVERY, DOUG? OVERTURNING PLESSY V. FERGUSON, THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL DID. DO YOU FIND MANY PEOPLE STILL “OPEN” TO THE RETURN OF SEGREGATED SCHOOLS, DOUG?
“…or for that matter the Catholic mind to different or alternative ways to discourage abortion.” NOW YOU’RE GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER, URGING YOUR FELLOW CATHOLICS TO BE OPEN ABOUT VOTING FOR A PRO-INFANTICIDE LIBERAL WHILE ENDORSING UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND INCOME SUPPORT SO ‘DISCOURAGE’ ABORTION. SO CYNICALLY CIRCUITOUS IT IS WORTHY OF YOUR MACHIAVELLIAN STRIPE, DOUG. FROM HIS GRAVE NICCOLO SALUTES YOU.
“The church has always indicated that the social teaching of the church—providing for a family wage [FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IMPLIED], providing for decent health care [UNIVERSAL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE ALA OBAMA] providing for decent shelter [MORE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR HOUSING], providing for the conditions that enhance the human person [HERE ADD THE ENTIRE LITANY OF PORK BARREL GOODIES] are essential to making sure that no person, no woman, no expectant mother feels compelled or coerced to make the tragic course of taking the life of her own child. So it is significant to the Democrats because of course it is a great expansion for them. [HUH? YOU MEAN THE WISH TO CUT DOWN THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BY THE ABORTION PARTY YOU’VE JOINED?] It is, however, also significant for Catholics insofar as it reaffirms a much larger sweep of the alternative ways to address abortion.” NOW AFTER MAKING THAT PRETZEL BEND IN RATIONALE, YOU’RE ENTITLED TO A DRINK, DOUG.
**************************
I’ll take my hat off to you, Doug. Your painstaking rationale is akin to a lawyer hired to defend the Nuremburg gang petitioning that the charge of genocide against them be reduced to operating the ovens without a city permit.
Obama Lied on Born Live.
I have been variously trying to figure out Obama. Is he a pseudo-Marxist as his largely secret talk in San Francisco indicated…where he berated average people in Appalachia who didn’t vote for him for “clinging” to religion in their poverty—paraphrasing religion the opium of the people dictum where Marx lachrymosely wails in behalf of the downtrodden who substitute God for material gains, a direct parallel? Or is he an empty suit? Now I have come to a conclusion. He has the fashionable, faculty room style with vacuous rhetoric emblematic of an empty suit, relying on his old socialist nostrums that make good phraseology rather than resorting to common sense economic and social concerns. That’s why the kids think he’s Bono.
So he’s a combination of a lazy mind, cluttered with rhetoric rattling around in an empty head…indicative of the fact that he has written nothing o intellectual worth either from Harvard or in his formative community organizing years or introduced anything of significance in his few years in either the Illinois Assembly or the U.S. Senate. That’s it: a vacant mind that insofar as it considers anything relies on socialist neo-Marxism; a religious outlook that is so relativistic as to make a Unitarian high church. And a tricky capacity to lie.
The lies come from his wriggling to get off the hook on Obama’s support of Born Alive. He has claimed over and again that he would have supported the bill he strangled to death if it had contained language to protect abortion rights. Well once again he is a chronic and unmitigated liar. Now there’s documentation that Obama DID vote against a version of Born Live that contained the very language that was contained in the U.S. Senate version before he got there, which so many of his Democratic colleagues including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer supported and which was signed into law. In the state senate Judiciary committee, just before the roll-call vote that killed the bill, senators voted to amend it to include a “neutrality clause” identical to the one passed by the U.S. Senate.
That clause was copied from the federal version of the law and which contained the very language Obama claimed he needed in order to support the bill. It was killed by a 6 to 4 vote, Obama voting with the majority.
Verdict: Marxist-inclined, empty head, empty suit and liar.
If McCain Wants to Lose…
No, Tom Ridge’s pro-choice credentials don’t necessarily bother me. The pro-abortion candidate for the 1980 Republican nomination was Daddy Bush who, once he was picked for veep, changed overnight and named Clarence Thomas to the court as president. What bothers me is that Ridge is a Catholic pro-choicer which gives the finger to Catholic authenticists like myself who have fought the lonely fight…even within the malleable hierarchy of our church…for a strong stand on abortion. It would certify that Doug Kmiec, doing his damndest to elect Obama, just happens to favor another pro-abortion candidate while we favor one for vice president.
But you say, “you’re a single issue guy.” Right you are—but there are other disadvantages to Ridge besides his pro-abortionism. As a House member from Pennsylvania from 1984 to `88 he was more likely to oppose President Reagan’s position on a given issue than be for it. “Congressional Quarterly” shows he was the most dovish of GOP members…supporting nuclear freeze. Imagine that: here we’d have a guy running for president (McCain) on a tough national security issue and his running mate was aligned with Walter F. Mondale and all the other libs on an issue that was the defining one separating the two parties in the Cold War.
As a House member he supported Reagan only 40% of the time…an incredibly low record.
This idea that Ridge can carry Pennsylvania. Utter nonsense. Although governor, he was never that popular there. As Bush’s Homeland Security secretary he was the guy who told us first we were on green alert, orange alert, pink alert.
Enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment