"Pro-Life, Pro-Obama" website launched (buckle your seatbelts

Kmiec has jumped the shark. He had once crafted perhaps the single best justification argument for a pro-Obama vote, but now this ... this is all-out vote pandering.

The idea that Catholics can honestly determine that Obama is pro-life "upon even a moment's reflection" is simply absurd beyond argument, looking at the facts. And deciding after a moment's reflection? I'm positive that claim does not even apply to Kmiec himself!

Kmiec surely took more than a moment's reflection to support Obama. In fact, he took years.

Kmiec is throwing all of his eggs into the Obama basket to win over the "Catholic vote," including his previous record: "As Ronald Reagan's legal counsel and as a dean and professor at Catholic University and Notre Dame, I have worked to put the law on the side of life where it belongs."

The point? "Catholic University and Notre Dame hired me! See? I'm Catholic. You can trust me."

Kmiec is the face of Obama's Catholic support. And I'm exasperated by him using his faith to deceive fellow Catholics and make his (arguable) conclusions obligatory upon the rest of us. He is systematically challenging and making a mockery out of every Catholic voter's guide issued by the American bishops, he also makes a shambles of the process by which Catholics are called to inform their conscience, and frankly ... he demonstrates either a deep ignorance or a pathological inability to admit the shortcomings of his candidate.

Kmiec is essentially saying that Catholics must vote for a candidate who can only be called "pro-life" despite his own intention to unequivocally support universal access to abortion. If Obama doesn't want to be pro-life in the proper sense, how are we being pro-life in the proper sense by voting for him?

Let me be very clear: what I take issue with here, specifically, is Kmiec's claim that Obama is somehow a natural or obvious choice for Catholic voters. To say that, one must simply dissent from the Church's teaching that abortion, and the legal support of abortion is gravely wrong.

If Kmiec claims to be a Catholic in good standing, a Catholic to whom other Catholics can look with confidence, I'd like to see one example where he has read the recent writings of Catholic bishops on this and related topics.

Endlessly complaining about the persecution one has received from lay Catholics is an empty self-martyrdom if one continues to obstinately avoid dialogue with the shepherds of the Church.

Catholics know this, and Kmiec should know better. If his position is so obviously the Catholic one, why is he scared to approach the shepherds of the Church - the guardians of what truly is Catholic - with his argument?

I predict we can expect a well-organized media onslaught of Kmiec-clone arguments in the remaining weeks leading up to the election. Sadly PACs and grassroots political organizations frequently have better access to the Catholic faithful than do our own priests and bishops.

But don't be fooled, don't just trust the "experts" - listen to what the bishops are saying. I would challenge anyone to find what Doug Kmiec is saying, printed-up in a voting guide issued by the U.S. Bishops this year.

You won't.

During the years 1936-38, the National Socialist Party of Germany was seeking was whereby they might justify their military and social actions. Among other things, Adolph Hitler wanted possession of Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland; and he wanted to annihilate the Jewish race. Joseph Goebells was assigned the responsibility of accomplishing these tasks, and that of creating good "reasons" for doing so. It was then that Goebells adopted the phrase: Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It. He assumed the world would not be gullible enough to believe "little lies," but the bigger the lie, the more likely it is that people would eventually accept it as true. By the use of misinformation, negative propaganda, movies, and various dramatic presentations, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda was successful beyond the generation's realization.

Are there people around who do not understand that the clear and unequivocal position of the dimrat party is that abortion should be legal, available to all for any reason at any time and state funded?

Obama, when given the opportunity, has voted every time to support this democrat position. He has voted against restrictions (the born alive act in Ill.) that even the most pro-abortion advocates in the dimrat party have supported. He is an abortion absolutist who, by his votes, has indicated he will support no limitations whatsoever on the practice even when it is botched and the victim somehow manages to survive (in which case the child should be left to die of neglect). And he actually has the effrontery to claim he is “pro life”. I am unable to express the horror I feel that such a man will likely become the next president of the United States of America.

He needs to be soundly slapped down by our bishops.

He does. The problem is that now that we have all of these totally unofficial - but influential - laypeople giving the "Catholic" opinion, the Vatican doesn't really have any way of dealing with them. Rome can command bishops or priests to shut up by suspending their faculties (although it rarely does), but now that we have dropped heresy charges, the Vatican has little power over laypeople.

This guy is appalling. In fact, I went to mass with a liberal friend yesterday, and as we were crossing the church parking lot, we saw an Obama sticker - and even she said, "I don't see how any Catholic could vote for Obama." I know she'd love to vote for him, but even liberals realize that there's a fundamental contradiction.

Incidentally, one does not ever just vote for the candidate, one votes for the candidate's party as well. Here, I quote directly from the Democratic National Committee:

Choice

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

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

That's from page 50 of the Democratic Platform.

Accordingly, I cannot vote for any Democrat, for any office. The entire party is completely devoted to gravest evil. There's absolutely no place in the Democrat party for the pro-life position.

Pro-life Democrats, you needn't worry about leaving your party. Your party has already left you. If you can't register as a Republican, find a third party.

I posted this on the thread about Cafardi's nonsense:

-----------------

I believe that sacrificing children to Molech is an unspeakable evil, yet I support King Ahaz. It is true that Ahaz took the treasures from the house of God to use in the worship of false gods, and even burned his own son alive as an offering to Molech. I do not support him because he is idolatrous, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed follower of Jehovah?

Despite what some fanatical “prophets” would like the Israelites to believe, the Law of Moses does not consist solely of a prohibition on making human sacrifices to false gods. In fact, there are numerous commandments that must be considered.

Shortly after Yom Kippur, the Judean Levitical Council on Classifying Abominations released a a document that provides several examples of sins: consuming shellfish, failing to wash your hands before eating, burning your children alive, blending dissimilar fabrics, etc. As we can see, morality is much more complex and nuanced than some simplistic mantra that “killing children is bad.”

Ahaz’s fiery infanticide has led some to the conclusion that no faithful Jew can support him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that burning children in the name of Molech is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the idolatry battle — permanently. Withdrawing support for King Ahaz does not guarantee the end of infanticide in Judah. Not even close.

Let’s suppose Ahaz were dethroned. What would happen? His son Hezekiah would become king. Hezekiah is barely out of his teens, and said to be sickly. He lacks the executive experience necessary to operate an entire kingdom. There are rumors that he was once seen carrying a pot across the road on the Sabbath. And we could hardly expect that Hezekiah could put a stop to the idolatry. I mean, what is he going to do — tear down all the high places, shrines and altars of Baal? We need to be realistic.

There’s another factor that is often lost amid the inflamatory rhetoric on sacrificing to Molech. There is a difference between being “pro-Molech” and recognizing the right of other people to worship Molech as they see fit, such as by conflagratory filicide. During the most recent four years of King Ahaz’s reign, the number of children being sacrificed to Molech has dropped by almost 18%. While opponents claim this is due to factors such as “artificially reduced child population” or “parents fleeing in terror to other nations”, you cannot argue with results. King Ahaz favors a sophisticated, comprehensive approach to child sacrifce, where burning your children to death is not necessarily the only option. He is also an advocate for adoption, for those who have no children left to burn. In contrast, the self-styled “prophets” intolerantly insist on an immediate stop to ALL human sacrifice, with no evidence of willingness to reach out to Ahaz in a spirit of compromise.

It should also be kept in mind that the perceived need to pacify Molech with the flaming bodies of our young varies on the basis of how the country as a whole is doing. If, for example, King Ahaz’s brilliant pursuit of a military alliance with King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria is successful in alleviating the Syrian threat Judah faces, does it not make sense that the increased stability means fewer children will have to be burned to turn aside the wrath of Baal, Asherah, Chemosh and Molech? Is this not more practical than the prophets’ all-or-nothing demands?

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Jew to support the agenda of King Ahaz.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.