Obama's faith............ from Leithart.com

Obama's faith [Politics | Link | Print] In the December issue of The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan describes Barak Obama's conversion. In an interview with Sullivan, Obama said, "I didn't have an epiphany. What I really did was to take a set of values or ideals that were first instilled in my from my mother, who was, as I called her in my book, the last of the secular humanists - you know, belief in kindness and empathy and discipline, responsibility - those kinds of values. And I found in the Church a vessel or a repository for those values and a way to connect those values to a larger community and a belief in God and a belief in redemption and mercy and justice. . . . I guess the point is, it continues to be both a spiritual, but also an intellectual, journey for me, this issue of faith." Sullivan also quotes a June 2007 speech in Connecticut, where Obama gave a testimony: "One Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A Weight deliver a sermon called 'The Audacity of Hope' [which Obama later used as a title for one of his books]. And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, he would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life." Later, he walked the aisle to "affirm my Christian faith." His skepticism and questions remain, but "kneeling beneath the cross on the South Side, I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works." In another article in the same issue of The Atlantic Marc Ambinder says that his run for President is a response to that same call: "Obama's friends speak of this process as his 'calling.'" And the realization that he might be president goes back to a December 2006 visit to Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, where Obama reportedly received a standing ovation for a talk about AIDS in Africa. posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 07:12 AM

... a giant leap forward for the entire medical community, some of whom have been pressured to compromise their convictions on the job.

On Conscience, HHS Rules! He may technically be a "lame duck," but President Bush is going out with guns blazing. With just two months left in office, the administration dealt a crippling blow to online gambling and is prepared to do the same to the pro-abortion movement on conscience exemptions. Despite an uproar from the usual liberal suspects, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is putting the finishing touches on a rule that would create a hedge of protection around health care providers who object to abortion or other procedures on moral grounds. The regulations, which HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt has promoted for months, would bar anyone who receives federal funds from discriminating against pro-life doctors, nurses, or other medical workers because of their beliefs. Pharmacists would also be exempt from dispensing drugs that could end an innocent life -- like the abortifacient RU-486. If approved before the President leaves office, the rules would be a giant leap forward for the entire medical community, some of whom have been pressured to compromise their convictions on the job. Of course, there is some danger that President-elect Obama would undo HHS's hard work, but it would be a long and arduous task. Like much of the radical abortion camp, he says these rules would create a hurdle in "women's health care." However, his argument is severely flawed, considering that abortion is not -- nor will it ever be -- true health care. While Obama says he wants to "reduce abortions," his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act means he's not opposed to forcing people to perform them. Thanks to Secretary Leavitt, more Americans understand that the people who oppose these rules, including President-elect Obama, are the ones imposing their beliefs-not the men and women of faith. As Leavitt said on his blog, "Our nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience. This proposed rule is a fundamental protection for medical providers to follow theirs." Please let the administration know how much you appreciate their perseverance on conscience protections. Log on to secretarysblog.hhs.gov/my_weblog and leave Secretary Leavitt a comment expressing your gratitude.

Tom Daschle

Tom Daschle is another pro-choice Catholic. But, not only will he be a member of the new administration, but he will LEAD the post which will articulate executive policy on health care and the life questions. Bad news is on the horizon.

Remedy for Conservatives

Here’s a good practical remedy for us conservatives………pasted from a post by Andrew Sandlin. I think it will help us articulate our message in layman’s language. What specifically to do? Here’s a laundry list: Trumpet individual responsibility. The postmodern age is a communitarian age, hostile to the rugged individualism on which the nation was founded. The political dimension of this communitarianism is collectivism. Its economic expression is socialism. Its radical form is Marxism. Its mild form is the European social welfare state. But postmodernity is not a permanent cultural phase, and alternative options are readily available. True, amid economic chaos, a large sector of the population will trade individualism for security (think Germany, 1933). But as the economic woes inevitably recede, firing the electorate with a renewed sense of self-reliance and opposition to the nanny state and its onerous regulation and taxation may just be a winning message, especially among voters who can recall good economic times. In ordinary times, most Americans are less inclined to surrender their individual liberties without at least a fight. Like November 1932, November 2008 was not an ordinary time. November 2012 likely will be. Spread a modified populism. Liberals are committed essentially to global ideals. Conservatives are devoted to American ideals. Liberals don’t deem themselves unpatriotic — they just define patriotism in global terms (the fact that this definition is self-contradictory doesn’t seem to bother them). Bi-coastal, Ivy-League trained elites — that is, politicos like Barak Obama — wield great power in American society, but his coterie is a vast minority of the population, and the alliance between elites and non-elites in America is usually tenuous and temporary (not all elites are leftist, of course). Elites tend to be politically successful when they can persuade their perceived inferiors that they are looking out for their best interests (“Big Brother loves you and knows best”). This is an age-old liberal strategy, and one that opportunistic conservative non-elites should exploit. Conservatives need not capitulate to raw populism (which creates its own set of problems) to plan a “revolt of the masses” against entrenched political elitism on the Left. Conservatives must, however, show Wal-Mart moms and the rest of the suburban middle class that liberal elites who happen to run Washington D. C. are condescending, power-hungry and dangerous (notably in foreign policy). This message worked for Ronald Reagan, and it will continue to work for conservatives as long as a majority of Americans shop at Wal-Mart, eat at Dennys, enjoy entertainment like NASCAR, and are put off by Prius-driving, latte-sipping, caviar-consuming elites. This is not a form of class warfare, for which leftist populists are famous; after all, lots of rich people deplore political elitism (business elites they may be; political elites they are not). It is a form of cultural warfare against the folks who deem themselves The Anointed, entitled to dictate how the rest of us live our lives. Champion economic liberty. Yes, indeed, there are Wall Street elites, but Americans in ordinary times don’t want to penalize the rich; they want to be rich. When they’re frightened economically, they can be enticed by elitist Robin Hoods like Barak Obama and Barney Frank, but, generally, they want their own burgeoning mutual funds and 401k’s. Conservatives need to show that interventionist economics aren’t just bad for America in the abstract (true enough) but bad also for every American in the concrete: do you trust the state to spend your money more wisely than you can? If not, then vote for the people that want you to keep — and spend — your own money. Cultivate pro-family ethics. In the various states, same-sex marriage proposals mostly fail and traditional marriage proposals mostly win. Whatever the sentiment in presidential races, most of the country is not ready to throw the traditional family under the bus. Moreover, abortion (except in deep-blue states like California) is becoming less popular. In this way especially, conservatives should reach out to the growing Black and Hispanic population, who are proportionately more pro-family than Whites. Conservatives need — and can attract — these voters. A coalition of rugged individualists, Middle America anti-elitists, market libertarians and pro-family fans covers a wide swath of American society — wide enough to garner a majority of votes in ordinary times. This four-fold appeal is not just a tactic or a strategy. It creates a deep resonance with the human condition that, particularly in ordinary times, rings true to many Americans. Conservatives need to get cracking.

Grandma-Mommy

This presents a lot of complicated ethical choices!

This is good news from First Things

Posted by Stefan McDaniel on November 10, 2008, 3:35 PM First Things board member (and frequent contributor) Prof. Robert P. George has just been appointed to the U.N.’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). In this capacity he will “advise the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the ethics of its endeavors in the fields of science and technology.” Prof. George, one of the United States’ most influential public intellectuals, has spent much of his career vigorously advancing powerful pro-life arguments in the public square, including as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. The pro-life cause could have no abler champion at the U.N.

...over 50 million people voted against Obama. Are they all bigots?

In his blog, Peter Leithart quotes Alan Wolfe and gives a few remarks (pasted below) worth reading. Even though Alan Wolfe is considered among the most often cited “public intellectuals,” his remarks show amazing ignorance of just what it is that the majority of southerners really value….... our stand with the Republicans has more to do with the sacred value of one’s skin rather than its color. SM Hutchens writes: Discrimination based on the color of one’s skin is not now the burning issue of our time, however. It’s that we’ve forgotten the value of human skin in the first place. The human skin of the baby in the womb, the human skin of the severely disabled (candidates for “selective” abortion), the human flesh and blood of the elderly, and the bodies of those near death, from whom we cut organs while they are, yes, still, alive—this human flesh is abused and sacrificed on various altars. Resting on the hard-earned laurels of enlightened colorblindness, many have forgotten, or deny, the sanctity of the very flesh about which we say we are so indifferent as to its color. While it is true that Scripture gives clear admonitions for people with means to help the poor, there is a big difference between the morality of government tax policy, welfare programs, etc and the immorality of promoting abortion, infanticide and euthanasia as the law-of-the-land. Does President-elect Obama really want to change our culture where the most helpless are the victims of the most severe type of discrimination? It seems he wants to perpetuate and encourage this type of discrimination which has become so culturally accepted since Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and other rulings by judicial activists which have imposed this immorality on the land. (He said his first act upon taking office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.) Fie on him for that. Whatever the Republican Party shortcomings, I will continue to work hard for the Republican Party and her candidates as long as she makes a public stand for the sanctity of human life and works to reverse that which has been created by such shameful twisting of our Constitution. Let’s all do our part. ORA ET LABORA …..for cultural change promoting the protection of life and liberty and a return to first principles of our Constitutional Republic here is the post from www.leithart.com Alan Wolfe, announcing the end of the culture wars with the election of Obama, accuses the South of voting against Obama because Southerners are racists: “The single most disturbing aspect of last night’s election is the transformation of the Republican Party into the party of the Confederacy. Yes, Republicans remain strong in states such as Wyoming and Idaho, and Obama won Virginia and is leading in North Carolina. But both these latter two states flipped to the Democrats because they contain large numbers of white professionals who moved there from other parts of the country and because blacks came out to vote in such force. Long-time Southern whites, by contrast, opposed Obama–those in the Deep South most of all. Despite having lost the Civil War and having been instructed by the laws of the land to treat members of both races equally, large parts of the South resisted–and they continue to resist.” Alan Wolfe, announcing the end of the culture wars, advises Obama to ignore a significant swath of the country: “Perhaps they will be able to control the Republican Party for the next electoral cycle or two, but the white South has finally lost its privileged position in American political life; Jesse Helms’s Senate seat is now held by Kay Hagan. Like all those who lose their privileges, especially those who never earned them in the first place, they are unlikely to show much grace, despite the effort by John McCain, in his concession speech, to point the way. Obama would do well not to try to win them over but to ignore them. They have for too long been a malignant force in American political life, and we should not miss their passing.” Alan Wolfe, announcing the end of the culture wars, ignores the fact that over 50 million people voted against Obama - are they all bigots? Alan Wolfe, announcing the end of the culture wars, does his best to reignite them and to stoke up the flames. posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 8:00 am FYI: Alan Wolfe is a political scientist and a sociologist and is currently on the faculty of Boston College and serves as director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of American Democracy Foundation Earlier in his career, Wolfe was a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop. By the early 1980s, Wolfe's politics had become more centrist. A contributing editor of The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, Commonwealth Magazine, and In Character, Wolfe writes often for those publications as well as for Commonweal, The New York Times, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, and other magazines and newspapers. He served as an advisor to President Bill Clinton in preparation for his 1995 State of the Union Address and has lectured widely at American and European universities. He was ranked #98 in the list of the 500 most cited intellectuals in the 2001 book by Richard Posner titled Public Intellectuals.

FYI, a little background on Rahm Emanuel

Posted by Keith Pavlischek on November 7, 2008, 3:49 PM President-Elect Obama has named Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff, perhaps the most important single figure in his inner circle. In January 2005 Representative Emanuel was interviewed by the late Tim Russert, and asked about the Iraq war. MR. RUSSERT: You voted–you said you would have voted for the war if you had been in Congress. REP. EMANUEL: Right. MR. RUSSERT: Now, knowing that are no weapons of mass destruction, would you still have cast that vote? REP. EMANUEL: Yes. Well, you could have done–well, as you know, I didn’t vote for it. I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK? But how you go about it and how you execute that war is the problems we face today. MR. RUSSERT: So even knowing there are no weapons of mass destruction, you would still vote to go into Iraq? REP. EMANUEL: You can make–you could have made a case that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and what you could have done also, Tim, is worked with other countries, go through the U.N., take the time to do it. Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn’t about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it’s how they have pursued this war, the lack of planning, the lack of processing, thinking about there was no plan, as you know, for after we removed Saddam Hussein, what would you do. There was no plan for–as you know, before war, you had to have an exit strategy. One has not even been annunciated. There’s been a presumption that we were going to be greeted as liberators. There was a presumption this would be quick and easy, and then we can turn the country over. None of that has been laid out, and that has to do with the competency and the planning that goes in, and they did not have a plan for the day after “hostilities ended.” MR. RUSSERT: This is the way Democrats are talking in 2005. But back when they were voting for the war, and three-fourths of both houses of Congress voted to authorize the president to go to war, as a candidate you said you would. And in March of 2003, Congressman Emanuel, your tone was strikingly different. This is what you said. “I had the fortunate experience of serving in the White House; I knew firsthand what a solitary and difficult decision it is for a President to send our Armed Forces into harm’s way. I will remember some of the members of this body, in the midst of conflict, attacking the President–the commander-in-chief– even even as he worked day-and-night to complete that mission and bring our servicemen and women home safely. It was wrong then. It would be wrong now. I, for one, will not do that to our President … to our commander-in-chief. I want him to succeed. We should all want him to succeed. So as long as our troops [are] engaged, we should suspend the debate over how and why, focus on the mission, unite as a country, in prayer and resolve, hope for a speedy resolution of this war with a minimum of loss. God bless America.” So, while the new Chief of Staff for the Obama administration had reservations about the conduct of the war, he nevertheless whole-heartedly defended the invasion of Iraq. As late as January 2005, Emmanuel would have no part of the “Bush lied, soldiers died” mantra of the anti-war left. Nor did he trot out the mantra of the anti-war religious left that the Iraq war was an unjust and unnecessary war. It seems as though the Iraq war for Emmanuel was just and justified, although the planning for peace and stability operations was flawed. I’ve personally been called a “warmonger” for holding precisely that opinion. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones, but I do so very much look forward to the howls of protest, the outrage at this early act of betrayal from the anti-war religious left. So, to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider and others on the anti-war religious left, I have to ask: Where’s the outrage?

Today is Rosemary's Birthday!

Praise the Lord for a wonderful daughter of 25 years . We have been blessed!

Frankincense Extract Fights Arthritis Pain

Tuft's University Health and Nutrition newsletter reports that an extract from frankincense--one of the gifts of the magi---might help ease arthritis symptoms. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the extract, trade named 5-loxin, in osteoarthritis of the knee found significant pain relief plus reduced levels of a marker of joint pathology........my knees have been creaking lately. I might try this!

Do the next thing....

From an old English parsonage down by the sea There came in the twilight a message to me; Its quaint Saxon legend, deeply engraven, Hath, it seems to me, teaching from Heaven. And on through the doors the quiet words ring Like a low inspiration: “DOE THE NEXTE THYNGE.” Many a questioning, many a fear, Many a doubt, hath its quieting here. Moment by moment, let down from Heaven, Time, opportunity, and guidance are given. Fear not tomorrows, child of the King, Thrust them with Jesus, doe the nexte thynge. Do it immediately, do it with prayer; Do it reliantly, casting all care; Do it with reverence, tracing His hand Who placed it before thee with earnest command. Stayed on Omnipotence, safe ‘neath His wing, Leave all results, doe the nexte thynge Looking for Jesus, ever serener, Working or suffering, be thy demeanor; In His dear presence, the rest of His calm, The light of His countenance be thy psalm, Strong in His faithfulness, praise and sing. Then, as He beckons thee, doe the nexte thynge. Anonymous

a paragraph from S. M. Hutchens' editorial on moral equivalencies of Democrat and Republican Party....I guess that should be moral inequivalencies

One of the most common defenses for Democratic loyalties is to assert the moral equivalence of the two parties, to claim that their respective errors leave the Christian to vote for the one he thinks most Christian, or least unchristian. If the Democrats endorse abortion, sodomy, and the like, Republicans cut social programs for the poor. This is a plausible and attractive argument except for one thing. We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil, but we do not know with any certainty whether any particular disbursement of funds for the poor is good or bad or mixed. Our faith directs us to give alms, quietly and generously, and to bless and care for the widows and the fatherless, but also tells that those who will not work shall not eat. Distinctions, often difficult ones, must be made in our policies between who should be marked as poor and who should not, and on how collective monies should be spent or not spent for their relief, the kind of distinctions that have historically marked differing party philosophies, and upon which Christians have historically had differences of opinion. A Christian may think the Democrats’ social and economic programs are superior to the Republicans’, but he knows that the Democrats’ moral policies are aggressively ungodly. read the full post here