President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[diggerdomer]

Nothing objective? Here are a few of Bush’s pro-life actions:

• Re-instituted the Mexico City Policy to stop taxpayer funding of overseas abortions.
• Cut funding for UNFPA which supported China’s abortion programs.
• Instituted a policy which prevented taxpayer funding of new embryonic stem cell programs.
• Signed bill banning partial birth abortion ban. (Note that Clinton had vetoed such a bill twice.)
• Signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
• Appointed pro-life people to many key positions. (Obama has consistently appointed pro-abortion persons.)
• Named two supreme court justices who are not part of the pro-choice contingent.
• Instituted conscience clause regulations to protect pro-life health care workers.
• Instituted conscience clause regulations to protect pro-life health care workers.

Obama has already undone several of the above. All of his actions will be directed to preserving abortion, not preventing it.

Yes, of course, but let’s get objective and specific about actual abortion statistics. Do you have any?

 

[JimG]

Abortion statistics can be found here and in many other places. There is a reason every pro-life organization supported President Bush: whenever a pro-life bill or proposition was presented to him, he signed it, enacted it, or tried to. Whenever an abortion limiting bill is presented to President Obama, he will veto it. Where possible, he will overturn pro-life regulations previously in place. Where possible, he will appoint pro-abortion judges at every level of the judiciary. With a pro-abortion Democratic congress in place, it’s not likely that any pro-life legislation will reach his desk. He received millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbying groups in support of his campaign.

 

[catharina]

Abortion statistics can be found here and in many other places. There is a reason every pro-life organization supported President Bush: whenever a pro-life bill or proposition was presented to him, he signed it, enacted it, or tried to. Whenever an abortion limiting bill is presented to President Obama, he will veto it. Where possible, he will overturn pro-life regulations previously in place. Where possible, he will appoint pro-abortion judges at every level of the judiciary. With a pro-abortion Democratic congress in place, it’s not likely that any pro-life legislation will reach his desk. He received millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbying groups in support of his campaign.

Excellent, JimG, and thank you.
It’s amazing that anyone would doubt the record of pro-life POTUS Bush, esp in re Obama.

The choice made by Father Jenkins to HONOR Obama is a perfect example of ignoring substance in favor of status. It’s a horrifying example to place before ND graduates.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Nothing objective? Here are a few of Bush’s pro-life actions:

• Re-instituted the Mexico City Policy to stop taxpayer funding of overseas abortions.
• Cut funding for UNFPA which supported China’s abortion programs.
• Instituted a policy which prevented taxpayer funding of new embryonic stem cell programs.
• Signed bill banning partial birth abortion ban. (Note that Clinton had vetoed such a bill twice.)
• Signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
• Appointed pro-life people to many key positions. (Obama has consistently appointed pro-abortion persons.)
• Named two supreme court justices who are not part of the pro-choice contingent.
• Instituted conscience clause regulations to protect pro-life health care workers.

Obama has already undone several of the above. All of his actions will be directed to preserving abortion, not preventing it.

Interesting then, that there was a massive increase in abortions under Reagan and Bush Sr., and a massive decrease in abortions under Clinton.

The UNFPA works to reduce infant mortality, reduce maternal mortality, increase education availability, reduce HIV transmission, increase life expectancy, and provide reproductive services. By cutting funding to it, Bush cut funding to all of these worthwhile programs as well. Only the last one is connected in any way with abortion, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting China’s abortion program. The Bush administration insisted it did, because it is active in China, but no other nations have come to the same conclusion. The Mexico City policy was the policy that cut funding to the UNFPA. And in any case, the European Union made up the difference after the US stopped funding the UNFPA. So in effect, all that did was strain our relations with Europe.

The Supreme Court is obligated to uphold past decisions, so changing the makeup of the justices is unlikely to have any real change in abortion laws. The only way to allow abortion to be made illegal in the United States is to pass an amendment, but the pro-life movement always focuses on the President, who really doesn’t have much control over it.

The Republican party in general seems like it’s pro-life in name only, and throws the pro-life movement a bone every few years, as thanks for letting them slant the economy even more toward the wealthy and well-connected. Every Republican “pro-life” bill seems to work by either banning something or cutting funding from a program. They have yet to put their money where their mouth is, and fund any sort of program to reduce abortions. In many cases these bills that try and reduce abortions by cutting funding, actually increase abortions, since they also reduce access to forms of contraception that prevent unintentional pregnancies.

Abortion statistics can be found here and in many other places. There is a reason every pro-life organization supported President Bush: whenever a pro-life bill or proposition was presented to him, he signed it, enacted it, or tried to. Whenever an abortion limiting bill is presented to President Obama, he will veto it. Where possible, he will overturn pro-life regulations previously in place. Where possible, he will appoint pro-abortion judges at every level of the judiciary. With a pro-abortion Democratic congress in place, it’s not likely that any pro-life legislation will reach his desk. He received millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbying groups in support of his campaign.

If Bush hadn’t bungled virtually every other aspect of running the country, Democrats wouldn’t have had such a landslide victory in the last two national elections. I can’t speak for every pro-life American who voted for Obama, but I know a lot of people decided that voting strictly based on each candidate’s stand on abortion wasn’t worth running the country into the ground.

 

[catharina]

No, she’s just easily outraged by anything that has the appearance of contradicting the Church. I’m not sure why she was accusing Ronald of calling Obama a baby-killer; I could have sworn she called him that herself a few times already.

Luis, I see you’ve returned to the thread.
I’m still waiting for you to retract your lie about me and my posts.
An apology would would be a nice touch too.

(PS - as I proved with quotes, RonaldE did call Obama a babykiller.)

 

[catharina]

I can’t speak for every pro-life American who voted for Obama, but I know a lot of people decided that voting strictly based on each candidate’s stand on abortion wasn’t worth running the country into the ground.

You might have a point re anti-life and “pro-life” voters coming together for Obama. All might have been more focused on the activity in their wallets than on activity in the womb.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, I see you’ve returned to the thread.
I’m still waiting for you to retract your lie about me and my posts.
An apology would would be a nice touch too.

(PS - as I proved with quotes, RonaldE did call Obama a babykiller.)

I was being facetious, someone thought you might be pro-choice, and that was my way of saying you’re anything but. I never actually lied about you, “I could have sworn” typically means “I was sure this happened, although in reality it did not”. As in, “I was sure Catharina called Obama a baby-killer, but in reality she did not.” This would be the second time you demanded an apology after misinterpreting what I wrote. No.

You might have a point re anti-life and “pro-life” voters coming together for Obama. All might have been more focused on the activity in their wallets than on activity in the womb.

Or they might have come to the conclusion that abortion would remain legal no matter who they voted for, and voted based on other issues. John McCain was pro-life in name only, and had been known to support pro-choice legislation. I mean, that’s how Bush beat him in 2000.

 

[JimG]

The Supreme Court is not obligated to uphold past decisions. It may reverse itself. And the other two branches of government as well as the citizenry are not obligated to support supreme court decisions which are in error. Just because the Court makes a mistake is no reason for the President and the Congress to support and compound the mistake. They should work to overturn such mistakes.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

The Supreme Court is not obligated to uphold past decisions. It may reverse itself. And the other two branches of government as well as the citizenry are not obligated to support supreme court decisions which are in error. Just because the Court makes a mistake is no reason for the President and the Congress to support and compound the mistake. They should work to overturn such mistakes.

Ok, perhaps they aren’t obligated, but in virtually all cases they do build on past decisions unless there is some difference in the fundamental reasoning behind the case. In 1992, the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, even though they were predominantly Republican appointees. Pretty much the only way this can get overturned now is an amendment, but the pro-life movement always seems to focus on the President. There’s practically nothing he can do.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Interesting then, that there was a massive increase in abortions under Reagan and Bush Sr., and a massive decrease in abortions under Clinton.

The UNFPA works to reduce infant mortality, reduce maternal mortality, increase education availability, reduce HIV transmission, increase life expectancy, and provide reproductive services. By cutting funding to it, Bush cut funding to all of these worthwhile programs as well. Only the last one is connected in any way with abortion, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting China’s abortion program. The Bush administration insisted it did, because it is active in China, but no other nations have come to the same conclusion. The Mexico City policy was the policy that cut funding to the UNFPA. And in any case, the European Union made up the difference after the US stopped funding the UNFPA. So in effect, all that did was strain our relations with Europe.

The Supreme Court is obligated to uphold past decisions, so changing the makeup of the justices is unlikely to have any real change in abortion laws. The only way to allow abortion to be made illegal in the United States is to pass an amendment, but the pro-life movement always focuses on the President, who really doesn’t have much control over it.

The Republican party in general seems like it’s pro-life in name only, and throws the pro-life movement a bone every few years, as thanks for letting them slant the economy even more toward the wealthy and well-connected. Every Republican “pro-life” bill seems to work by either banning something or cutting funding from a program. They have yet to put their money where their mouth is, and fund any sort of program to reduce abortions. In many cases these bills that try and reduce abortions by cutting funding, actually increase abortions, since they also reduce access to forms of contraception that prevent unintentional pregnancies.

If Bush hadn’t bungled virtually every other aspect of running the country, Democrats wouldn’t have had such a landslide victory in the last two national elections. I can’t speak for every pro-life American who voted for Obama, but I know a lot of people decided that voting strictly based on each candidate’s stand on abortion wasn’t worth running the country into the ground.

Perhaps we should be more focused on doing the will of God than voting for a guy because you think he’s cool. If one can accomplish this then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and the Pres. would be focusing on running the country instead of polluting the minds of kids at N.D.

Relativism can be a hard habit to kick, or so I’ve heard.

 

[Ronald_E]

Perhaps we should be more focused on doing the will of God than voting for a guy because you think he’s cool. If one can accomplish this then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and the Pres. would be focusing on running the country instead of polluting the minds of kids at N.D.

Relativism can be a hard habit to kick, or so I’ve heard.

I just heard on EWTN yesterday that 84% of those getting an abortion feel pressured into it.
421 lives were saved this last 40 Days for Life campaign. This was through praying the Rosary outside abortion clinics. The last day reported a 4 year old daughter telling her dad to give cookies to those going into the clinic while telling them that this is a cookie that you can give your baby. When dad did this the mother cried and left the clinic.

If the statistics are correct about abortions decreasing during democratic administrations it is probably because there is more availability to healthcare and education which then gives women hope and a sense of safety.

Relativism being lived in our faith is living it in a manner in which we do not give up enough of ourselves and our resources to help those who bring life into the world. All we have to do today is to compare how we live to what Our Lord does on the Cross.

Luke 6: 35-38 “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into you lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you.”

Do we give more than we judge? I know I fail at this.

 

[diggerdomer]

Abortion statistics can be found here and in many other places. There is a reason every pro-life organization supported President Bush: whenever a pro-life bill or proposition was presented to him, he signed it, enacted it, or tried to. Whenever an abortion limiting bill is presented to President Obama, he will veto it. Where possible, he will overturn pro-life regulations previously in place. Where possible, he will appoint pro-abortion judges at every level of the judiciary. With a pro-abortion Democratic congress in place, it’s not likely that any pro-life legislation will reach his desk. He received millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbying groups in support of his campaign.

Thanks for the link.

 

[catharina]

I was being facetious, someone thought you might be pro-choice, and that was my way of saying you’re anything but. I never actually lied about you, “I could have sworn” typically means “I was sure this happened, although in reality it did not”. As in, “I was sure Catharina called Obama a baby-killer, but in reality she did not.” This would be the second time you demanded an apology after misinterpreting what I wrote. No.

Pathetic. Your excuse: you were jokng? Sure, Luis. (NOT.)

It would be so helpful if you could learn to present coherent thoughts.
Your humor is unintelligible since even use of your logic is routinely flawed.

It’s Good Friday, Luis.
Maybe you could decide to forego mockery.
It’s pointless and usually cruel.

 

[mapleoak]

Interesting then, that there was a massive increase in abortions under Reagan and Bush Sr., and a massive decrease in abortions under Clinton.

The UNFPA works to reduce infant mortality, reduce maternal mortality, increase education availability, reduce HIV transmission, increase life expectancy, and provide reproductive services. By cutting funding to it, Bush cut funding to all of these worthwhile programs as well. Only the last one is connected in any way with abortion, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting China’s abortion program. The Bush administration insisted it did, because it is active in China, but no other nations have come to the same conclusion. The Mexico City policy was the policy that cut funding to the UNFPA. And in any case, the European Union made up the difference after the US stopped funding the UNFPA. So in effect, all that did was strain our relations with Europe.

The Supreme Court is obligated to uphold past decisions, so changing the makeup of the justices is unlikely to have any real change in abortion laws. The only way to allow abortion to be made illegal in the United States is to pass an amendment, but the pro-life movement always focuses on the President, who really doesn’t have much control over it.

The Republican party in general seems like it’s pro-life in name only, and throws the pro-life movement a bone every few years, as thanks for letting them slant the economy even more toward the wealthy and well-connected. Every Republican “pro-life” bill seems to work by either banning something or cutting funding from a program. They have yet to put their money where their mouth is, and fund any sort of program to reduce abortions. In many cases these bills that try and reduce abortions by cutting funding, actually increase abortions, since they also reduce access to forms of contraception that prevent unintentional pregnancies.

If Bush hadn’t bungled virtually every other aspect of running the country, Democrats wouldn’t have had such a landslide victory in the last two national elections. I can’t speak for every pro-life American who voted for Obama, but I know a lot of people decided that voting strictly based on each candidate’s stand on abortion wasn’t worth running the country into the ground.

Translation: Since abortions increased during the Bush administration and decreased during the Clinton administration, it is now morally licit to support pro-abortion pro-death politicians.

 

[magdelaine]

The UNFPA works to reduce infant mortality, reduce maternal mortality, increase education availability, reduce HIV transmission, increase life expectancy, and provide reproductive services. By cutting funding to it, Bush cut funding to all of these worthwhile programs as well. Only the last one is connected in any way with abortion, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting China’s abortion program. The Bush administration insisted it did, because it is active in China, but no other nations have come to the same conclusion. The Mexico City policy was the policy that cut funding to the UNFPA. And in any case, the European Union made up the difference after the US stopped funding the UNFPA. So in effect, all that did was strain our relations with Europe

So why did a man who actually works with people in China write this letter to President Obama, begging him to delay further funding for UNFPA? Because he doesn’t want to see the people he works with get the bolded above? Or do you think that there *may *be something to this “forced abortion” connection? Read before answering.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

So why did a man who actually works with people in China write this letter to President Obama, begging him to delay further funding for UNFPA? Because he doesn’t want to see the people he works with get the bolded above? Or do you think that there *may *be something to this “forced abortion” connection? Read before answering.

I read the letter, although I’m somewhat familiar with this subject already. The UNFPA is allowed into China, and performs a lot of their health and human services work. However, they do NOT participate in enforcing the one-child policy. There are two schools of thought on what the UNFPA should do. The first school is that the UNFPA should threaten to stop providing services unless China makes improvements as far as human rights are concerned. The other school of thought is that if the UNFPA pulls out, a lot of people are going to end up losing their access to decent health services, and thus they should stay. Personally, I’m with the second school of thought. If the UNFPA pulls out, the people will suffer but the government will not. Trying to get human rights concessions out of China isn’t worth making more Chinese people suffer, and few people think it’d work anyway.

Translation: Since abortions increased during the Bush administration and decreased during the Clinton administration, it is now morally licit to support pro-abortion pro-death politicians.

My point is that if you’re actually serious about doing something about abortion, why would anyone keep voting for the same people who only pay the pro-life movement lip service, especially if abortions actually increase under their watch? The fact remains that if we actually want to repeal Roe v. Wade, it’s going to take an amendment, but somehow a lot of the pro-life movement has it in their heads that the president can do it.

 

[Nino]

Yes,I protested when Ike invited the butcher of budapest here to tour america,I protested when John Kennedy sold out the cuban freedom fighters at the bay of pigs then paid $50million dollars for ransom, I protested when LBJ ,who was elected on a peach ticket sent 300,000 troops to Nam,I protested to Nixon when he refused to honor the treaty and pulled our troops out leaving the entire nation to the tolerant ones, I protested Carter when he allowe Castro to open his jails and flood America with some 50,000 thugs who proceeded to rob and loot here,jumping to Clinton,I protested his treatment of simple mnded female interns in the oval office,I protested Bush one and two with their open borders allowing millions to work off the books thus cheating our governement…and I protested Bush in his no win war,never attending our anti-abortion rallies in Jan…and spending our great granchildren into debt…o hum…forget the above…no , those of use who have taken the time and money and heat down thru the years have been as quiet as all of the rest of the couch potatoes…I like my tatoes with ketchup…happy Easter

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Luis:

This has been discussed ad nauseum in various threads in Catholic Answers Forum. The Pope and the bishops made it clear in various statements that, if given a choice between a Candidate who is Pro-life and one who is Pro-abortion, we have to vote for the one who is Pro-Life…

And you miss the point. A practicing Catholic may not vote with the intent to advance grave intrinsic evil, but he or she may use discretion when choosing between candidates that both support things that are good and evil to various degrees.

… They further stated that the only time we could do otherwise is for PROPORTIONATE REASONS (i.e. other intrinsic evils). Although Pope John Paul II spoke out against the American invasion of Iraq, he also made it clear that he was doing so as a matter of OPINION and NOT as a matter of FAITH AND MORALS…

Hmm, interesting priorities. Just curious, when John Paul II spoke out against the US going to war in Iraq, whose side were you on? What’s your opinion on capital punishment? Both would be considered intrinsic evils.

… Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have further made it clear that, while their opposition to the invasion of Iraq was a Matter of OPINION, the Church’s opposition to ABORTION was and is a matter of FAITH AND MORALS. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made it clear that ABORTION is an INTRINSIC EVIL for which their is no justification, while the Iraq War was and is a matter of PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT.

John Paul II even made it clear that he didn’t have all of the facts and that he could be wrong. NO POPE HAS EVER SAID THAT OF ABORTION!!

Luis, you must not know the original Mexico City Policy, or what President Barack Obama did. Here is the Link to President Obama’s Executive Order…

Not to promote abortion, to fund NGOs that will provide abortion counseling. For instance, if a poor 9-year-old girl comes with her mother to one of these NGOs who is pregnant due to being raped, the workers would be allowed to give abortion as an option. For most NGOs who lost funding under the Mexico City policy, abortion counseling was a tiny fraction of what they did. I’m not saying abortion is ok, just that the lives saved by these groups is probably actually greater than the number of abortions.

The Executive Act said,
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”… President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.
There’s nothing in the act about a poor 9-year-old girl being brought in by her mother because she had been raped. Although, I suspect that you referring to a case I rad about recently in Espressoline:

Drifting Mines - In Africa the Condom, In Brazil Abortion
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1337637?eng=y

In this article, it’s pretty clear that the family didn’t want the Abortions (twins), and that the only people who really cared for the girl and her mother were the members of the Catholic Church.

Continued in Next Post,
Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Luis,
Continued from Previous Post…

Women who been raped have generally tend to say that the experience of the Abortion was like a Second Rape, while having the child turned out to be Redemptive…

rachelsvineyard.org/aboutus/ourstory.htm
boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000848.html
pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
afterabortion.org/rape.html

As for stem cells, these have all come from fertility clinics and would have been thrown out anyway, stem cell research or not. I know the Church is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but if they would be thrown away anyway, I’m not sure why it’s so bad. Also, adult stem cell research was made possible through embryonic stem cell research.

Luis, I guess you haven’t heard of “Egg Adoption” where Eggs that have been fertilized by these clinics are being “adopted” and implanted in women’s uteri. See this from a supporter of Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

How do you adopt a Frozen Egg

And, you’re not dealing with the fact that these fertilized eggs, these tiny humans, are the result of an immoral procedure, one which the Church has condemned and one in which Man assumes the role of Creator. Two wrongs have never made a right, and that is still the case in this case.

Luis, I had a neighbor who died from Parkinson’s Disease 2 years ago who benefited from Adult Stem Cell Research - The resulting treatment lengthened his life by 4 or 5 years, and dramatically improved his life for 3 of those years. Simon’s was just one of the 1,000+ treatments that have resulted from ADULT and PLACENTAL Stem Cell Research, and researchers have now manged to make these Stem cells as Plenipotential as Embryonic Stem Cells…

Meanwhile, after spending $ Billions in Government (European and State) and local funds, NO cures or treatments have been fund or discovered in over a decade of Embryonic Stem Cell Research by researchers around the world.

In 1992, a majority of the supreme court was Republican-appointed, but they still upheld Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Consistently electing Republicans in order to make abortion illegal is an exercise in futility, and in my opinion that will only get us endless wars and a government that ignores the poor in favor of the rich, while abortion meanwhile is still legal.

I probably dislike the reasoning in the Casey Decision as much as anyone here, but you’ll see that it’s decided on “Stare Decisis”. The Nomination of Justice O’Conner was the result of what was done to Judge Bork during his Confirmation Hearings - It seems that you’ve forgotten what happened to Judge Bork during who was profoundly mistreated by the Democratic Senate during his Confirmation Hearings because he was Pro-life and a faithful Catholic.

We can be sure that Justice Bork would not have voted to AFFIRM Roe v. Wade in the Casey Decision. Bork’s scholarship (and he was and is a scholar) probably would have persuaded Justice Kennedy, and that would have given us a 6-3 decision Affirming the Penn. Law and Overturning Roe v. Wade in part.

And, It seems that you’ve forgotten the infamous Clarence Thomas Confirmation Hearings where Justice Thomas was accused of just about everything the Democrats could think of - If you didn’t know better, you’d have thought it was an extended meeting of the Sanhedrin with all of the hateful testimony they elicited. Of course, Justice Thomas is a faithful Catholic and Pro-Life.

One has to wonder what would have happened if President George H.W. Bush, who wasn’t really dedicated to the Pro-Life cause, hadn’t gone through that massively unpleasantly experience…

Continued on Next Post…
Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Luis,
Continued from Previous Post…

The bit about Abortion Rates increasing during the Reagan and Bush Administrations is false - Tables available here:

Abortion in the United States - Statistics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
CDC Abortion Surveillance – United States
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

It seems that you have forgotten that President Bush invaded Afghanistan after people that country was harboring slaughtered over 2,600 of your fellow citizens and nearly 500 citizens from over 30 other countries. and, They would have slaughtered more if not for the outstanding bravery of those who gave their lives getting people out of the Twin Towers and the passengers on United Flight 93 who quite probably saved our government. It also seems that you’ve forgotten that this organization was allowed to fester and grow even while humiliating us in Somalia, bombing our Embassies in Africa, bombing our facilities in Saudi Arabia and nearly sinking our destroyer in Yemen. That the attack on 9/11 was the last in a long series of unprovoked attacks where we allowed our people and others to be slaughtered by these terrorists. and, The attack on 9/11 wasn’t even their first try at the WTC, and if their first attempt had succeeded in knocking the Towers down, the death toll would have been 30,000, not 3,000!

If Republicans start wars, what was President Clinton doing in the former Yugoslavia without UN Sanction? Why is much of the infrastructure in Serbia still demolished? Why did President Clinton decide to target the Warlords in Somalia but not to give the soldiers the resources they needed to do the mission? Why did President Truman side with the French against Ho Che Minh after Ho had helped us fight the Japanese in WW II? and, What were Kennedy and Johnson escalating the war doing in Vietnam?

What about Rwanda, which happened as a direct consequence of our humiliation in Somalia? What about the slaughter of over 2 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, and the deaths of 1.5 million Vietnamese, which happened as a direct result of our abandonment of the Republic of South Vietnam?

I’m sorry - We’ve just commemorated the day on which our Savior died, and I’ve had to answer an argument that is wrong historically and wrong on its face.

You’re trying to justify knowingly voting for a Pro-Abortion Candidate when there was a Pro-life Candidate available. I think in your heart you know what the right thing to do was, or you wouldn’t be defending the indefensible. You’re better off going to the Confessional Booth and getting Absolution for this sin from our Lord, Who is Love and Mercy Himself and Who longs to forgive our every sin.

I’m sorry, but this off-topic conversation has gone on long enough. It’s time we closed it down and returned to the original topic of what we’re going to do about ND and the Honoring of the most Pro-Abortion President in our country’s history by a Catholic University that bears the name of “Our Lady”.

I’ve signed 2 petitions and written 2 letters. I’ll post the 2 letters in later posts.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael