Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 7
4:00 – Kresta Comments
5:00 – What Catholic Women Think About Faith, Conscience, and Contraception
A recent report entitled “What Catholic Women !ink About Faith, Conscience, and Contraception,” offers new data about the views of church-going Catholic women towards contraception and related Church teachings—views that present both a challenge and an opportunity for the Church. The data confirms that most Catholic women do not fully support the Church’s teachings on contraception and natural family planning. However, Catholic women who regularly participate in the Church’s sacramental life (Mass and Confession) agree with the teachings on contraception and family planning in significantly higher numbers than women overall. The author of the report, Mary Hasson, joins us.
5:20 – Kresta Comments
Friday, September 7, 2012
Quakes Kill at Least 64 in Mountainous SW China
View Larger Map
Beijing (AP) — A series of earthquakes collapsed houses and triggered landslides Friday in a remote mountainous part of southwestern China where damage was preventing rescues and communications were disrupted. At least 64 deaths have been reported.
The quakes started with a 5.6-magnitude shock before 11:30 a.m. along the borders of Guizhou and Yunnan provinces, and another equally big quake struck shortly after noon followed by more than 60 aftershocks, Chinese and U.S. government seismologists said. Though of moderate strength, the quakes were shallow, which often causes more damage.
Hardest hit was Yiliang County, where all but one of the deaths occurred, according to the Yunnan provincial government's official website. Another 715 people in the county were injured, the sites said. Yiliang county's high population density, weak building construction, and propensity for landslides were blamed for the relatively high death toll.
China Central Television showed roads littered with rocks and boulders, and pillars of dust rising over hillcrests — signs of landslides. Footage showed a couple hundred people crowding into what looked like a school athletic field in Yiliang's county seat, a sizeable city spread along a river in a valley bottom.
With some roads impassable, rescuers had yet to reach some outlying villages and towns, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
Though quakes in the area occur frequently, buildings in rural areas and China's fast-growing smaller cities and towns are often constructed poorly. In 2008, a magnitude-7.9 quake that hit Sichuan province, just north of Yunnan, killed nearly 90,000 people, with many of the deaths blamed on poorly built structures, including schools.
Friday's quakes destroyed or damaged almost 30,000 homes across several counties and townships, the provincial government website said. The Yunnan seismology bureau said more than 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes. All told, Xinhua said, 700,000 people had their lives disrupted by the quake.
In Luozehe, a town in Yiliang near a zinc mine, residents and state media said boulders hurtled off hillsides and houses collapsed.
"It is scary. My brother was killed by falling rocks. The aftershocks struck again and again. We are so afraid," Xinhua quoted miner Peng Zhuwen as saying.
Wu Xuhong, a goat herder in Luozhe, said only tiles fell from his relatively solid cement and brick sheds.
"But I heard that a lot of buildings built of clay and wood collapsed and we temporarily lost power and mobile phone signal," Wu said.
Red Cross spokesman for East Asia, Francis Markus, said 2,000 quilts, 2,000 jackets and 500 tents were being rushed to the area, one of China's poorest, which is largely inhabited by members of the Yi ethnic minority.
He said the use of light construction materials would likely create far more injuries than deaths.
A government official in Jiaokui town said a large number of houses had collapsed.
"The casualty number is still being compiled. I don't know what it was like for the other towns, but my town got hit badly," he said. Like many Chinese officials, he refused to give his name.
Mobile phone services were down and regular phone lines disrupted. Phones were cut off to clinics in four villages in Qiaoshan, another town in Yiliang, which has about half a million people.
Authorities sent thousands of tents, blankets and coats to the area, Xinhua said.
It said that so far no casualties had been reported in neighboring Guizhou, but that homes had been damaged or destroyed there.
Friday's quakes were relatively shallow, about 10 kilometers (6 miles) deep, creating an intense shaking even at a lower magnitude.
By comparison, the 7.6-magnitude quake that struck Costa Rica this week was 41 kilometers (25 miles) below the surface, and combined with strict building codes, kept damage and deaths to a minimum.
Pakistani Christian girl accused of blasphemy to be freed from jail
Rimsha Masih, who is thought to be 14, has been at the centre of an international furore over Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
But in a bail hearing in an Islamabad courtroom on Friday her lawyers argued that she should be released, in large part because a mullah from her neighbourhood had been accused by colleagues of attempting to frame her on charges of burning sacred texts.
They claim the cleric Hafiz Mohammed Khalid Chishti planted pages of the Qur'an in a bag of burned refuse that Masih had been seen carrying through her neighbourhood on 16 August. She lives in an impoverished near-slum on the outskirts of Islamabad where a minority community of Christians live.
Lawyers representing the man who originally claimed to have caught Rimsha carrying what he thought were burned verses from Islam's most holy book tried to block the bail.
Rimsha's legal team responded by saying they were using "hyper technical arguments" to try to challenge the paperwork of the bail hearing.
The prosecution also attempted to undermine a medical board's assessment that Rimsha was legally a minor and that she was "mentally slow". Rimsha's supporters have long claimed she has Down's syndrome.
A decision on whether she will have to stand trial will be made after officials have finished their investigation into an affair that has cast unprecedented light on Pakistan's notorious blasphemy laws, which have been widely abused over the years and can carry the death penalty or long jail terms.
Ali Dayan Hasan, the Pakistan director of Human Rights Watch, said the organisation welcomed the court decision and urged the government to guarantee her security.
"The fact is that this child should not have been behind bars at all," he said. "All charges against her should be dropped and Pakistan's criminal justice system should instead concentrate on holding her accuser accountable for inciting violence against the child and members of the local Christian community."
He said the organisation hoped the case would "lead to a considered re-examination of the law".
However, most analysts say reform, let alone repeal, of the decades-old law is highly unlikely as the country gears up for national elections.
As the Presidential Race Narrows, Obama Invokes God at the DNC
In Charlotte last night, President Barack Obama gave a characteristically well-delivered speech that energized the party faithful and fired up his base. The man is a terrific speaker. If Mitt Romney manages to replace him in the Oval Office, he won’t because of a triumph of oratorical skills. Romney may, however, do so because of a triumph of substance and record—both of which Obama’s convention speech noticeably lacked. The president’s oration was high on style but low on content and specifics. Here’s my blow-by-blow analysis:
Obama began with what was not only his theme for the speech but for the campaign going forward. His onetime hope is now countered by realism; that is, the reality that Obama’s promises of 2008, particularly on the economic front, have not been realized. And yet, Obama has reasons for those failures—they were not his doing. His “hope,” he said, had been tempered by “the face of difficulty,” by “the face of uncertainty.” It turned out, explained Obama, that “the odds are great … the road is long.” His promises had been “tested—by the cost of war; by one of the worst economic crises in history; and by political gridlock that’s left us wondering whether it’s still possible to tackle the challenges of our time.”
Here, in essence, was a more sophisticated, high-road spin on the tired Obama mantra that “it’s Bush’s fault”—but with a new wrinkle tossed in: it’s also the Republican Congress’s fault.
Of course, to anyone who has paid attention over the last four years, and who has a modicum more objectivity than the acolytes on the Charlotte floor jumping up and down with “Forward” placards, it’s clear that Congressional gridlock was hardly Barack Obama’s obstacle these past four years. To the contrary, from 2009-10 Obama enjoyed a huge liberal-Democrat majority in Congress, one that gave him everything he wanted. That included a stunning $800-billion “stimulus” that not only failed to stimulate but singlehandedly blew the single largest hole into the deficit in American history.
Alas, this speech made no reference to the stimulus, nor to the HHS mandate that forced taxpayer funding of contraception and abortion drugs.
Mindful and faithful Catholics surely noticed those sins of omission. They might have also noted President Obama’s lack of references to religious liberty and religious freedom and, most certainly, the unborn. To the contrary, all of those themes would need to await Cardinal Dolan’s beautiful and bold benediction, evoking the “gift of life,” the “gift of liberty,” those “waiting to be born,” those “persecuted for their religious convictions,” the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the need for a “profound respect for religious liberty.” Dolan’s courageous prayer sounded like an elegant synthesis of Evangelium Vitae and the Declaration of Independence—and no doubt had the Democratic faithful reeling and asking: “Who the [expletive] allowed this guy to speak?”
Indeed, I listened closely, and I’m fairly certain I heard some boos drowning out the “amens” at the end of Dolan’s prayer. And why would that surprise us? Gee, these Democrats were divided over whether to even mention God in their platform.
If Dolan’s benediction struck some Democrats as the biggest disappointment of the closing hour of their convention, the biggest applause line of the evening came in response to Obama’s statement blasting “Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry or control healthcare choices that women should make for themselves.” That line brought the faithful to their feet. FoxNews caught a 60-something woman so emphatic that you could read her lips: “That’s right!” she shouted as she shook her fists. “That’s right!”
That statement from Obama was also, of course, a nod to gay marriage. Obama’s gay references electrified the delegates. The second largest applause line in the president’s speech was his celebration of those “selfless soldiers [who] won’t be kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love.” That, too, brought down the house. And there was still a third (direct) reference to “gays.”
In all, homosexuals got three more mentions than the unborn—standard fare for a Barack Obama speech.
Mentioned more than gays, however, were several inter-related demons in the president’s speech, all routine antagonists in any Obama speech or event orchestrated by his master strategist David Axelrod—namely, the nefarious “wealthy,” those greedy “corporations,” “oil companies,” and “Wall Street.” Like any Obama-Axelrod speech, the class-warfare cannons were fired often. Rearing their ugly heads were the “wealthiest households” that are “sticking it to the middle class.” There were those evildoers who make “the most” but “pay less.” There were those bad Republicans who always want to cut taxes. (As a Republican, this was an Obama dig that I happily accept.) There were those who want “bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations,” who turn things “over to Wall Street,” who thrive on “tax breaks for corporations,” and who place us all “at the mercy of insurance companies.”
But, alas, Barack Obama appealed to better angels in this speech—and not just those angels supposedly pervading the federal government. Indeed, in what was no doubt a response to the intense criticism over the exclusion of God by the Democrats, Obama last night delivered one of his most religious speeches. He first noted that Americans are endowed “by our Creator with certain inalienable rights”—though he wasn’t about to go where Cardinal Dolan went. He next mentioned the importance of “churches and charities.”
Better yet, in a line likely inserted by David Axelrod, a Lincoln aficionado, Obama quoted one of my all-time favorite faith-based presidential remarks: “I’m far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, ‘I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.’”
As a Reagan biographer, I know that Lincoln line well. It was a favorite of Ronald Reagan.
Obama wasn’t finished with the invocations of faith. He at long last linked his words of hope to the words of Scripture: “They remind me, in the words of Scripture, that ours is a ‘future filled with hope.’”
Obama then closed with a soaring, moving crescendo: “Providence is with us … we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth. God bless you! And may God bless these United States!”
Ah, yes. God … once excluded, now included—back with great force at the close of the Democratic convention. At this mention of God, the party faithful, dizzied into a rapturous joy, didn’t shout “no.”
Will it will be enough for Obama and the Democrats? For now, only God knows. The rest of us will learn this November.
Dolan Calls for Religious Liberty, Protection of Unborn at DNC
Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for protections for the unborn, in his benediction at the Democratic National Convention last night in Charlotte, N.C.
“Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure,” Dolan said in the prayer. “We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected.”
Dolan delivered the benediction at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Although that prayer contained language about the sanctity of human life, Dolan did not speak specifically about the unborn at the RNC.
Speakers at the DNC included Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and NARAL president Nancy Keenan.
Below is a video of the Benediction and the full text.
CARDINAL DOLAN:
"With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:
"Let us Pray.
"Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.
"We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.
"We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.
"We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.
"We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Oh God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.
"And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.
"And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.
"For we are indeed 'one nation under God,” and 'in God we trust.'
"So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.
"Amen!"
“Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure,” Dolan said in the prayer. “We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected.”
Dolan delivered the benediction at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Although that prayer contained language about the sanctity of human life, Dolan did not speak specifically about the unborn at the RNC.
Speakers at the DNC included Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and NARAL president Nancy Keenan.
Below is a video of the Benediction and the full text.
CARDINAL DOLAN:
"With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:
"Let us Pray.
"Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.
"We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.
"We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.
"We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.
"We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Oh God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.
"And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.
"And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.
"For we are indeed 'one nation under God,” and 'in God we trust.'
"So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.
"Amen!"
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Tragic Extinction of the Pro-Life Democrats
12:55 AM, Sep 5, 2012 • By JONATHAN V. LAST, The Weekly Standard
CharlotteFour years ago in Denver, the group Democrats for Life hosted an event. A tiny cadre of anti-abortion Democrats assembled in a hotel conference room and were treated to a hopeful talk led by Senator Bob Casey and Representatives Lincoln Davis and Heath Shuler. The pro-life caucus was a minority in the party, they realized, but it was a crucial bloc and it would not be left behind by a President Obama, he of the purple states and the hope and change. A new era for pro-life Democrats was just around the corner.
It turns out, they were right about it being a new epoch. Except that instead of making a place in the sun for pro-life Democrats, the Obama presidency was more like a meteor-strike, triggering an ice age and driving the species to extinction.
So when Democrats for Life rallied in Charlotte yesterday morning, it was striking that the group couldn’t muster a single sympathetic office-holder. The panel consisted of two representatives who were ousted in 2010 (Bart Stupak and Kathy Dahlkemper) and two academics (Catholic University’s Stephen Schneck and St. Thomas’s Thomas Berg). It was a sad, but revealing, presentation.
For pro-life Democrats there has always been tension between their opposition to abortion and their support of liberal social justice programs. They have sought to square the circle by constructing a “whole life” rationale in which they claim it is society’s job to protect not just the unborn, but the poor and the vulnerable at every stage of life. As such, they’ve weaved the morality of opposing abortion into support for a whole tapestry of liberal causes: everything from Head Start to welfare to immigration reform. It takes some doing, but nearly every liberal cause can be pulled into the whole-life cause. Various panelists yesterday morning, for instance, noted that support of campaign finance reform, opposition to the Iraq war, and “environmental justice” (whatever that is) are all essentially pro-life issues.
By not limiting themselves to the narrow topic of abortion, pro-life Democrats were able to make an uneasy peace with their party. The Democratic mainstream might not give any ground on abortion rights, but pro-life Dems could rationalize their existence by pointing to the good that liberal social welfare policies were doing for all of the souls lucky enough not to get aborted. What made this arrangement possible was the fact that there was a reasonably stable status quo on abortion—there was no immediate mechanism for overturning Roe, but neither was the government actively expanding abortion rights.
And then came Obamacare.
President Obama forced pro-life Democrats into a position where they had to make one end of their whole-life spectrum subordinate to the other. And when the chips were down, the pro-life Dems agreed to compromise on abortion in order to press forward with the rest of the social justice agenda. Suddenly, the tail was wagging the dog. And voters noticed.
Stupak and Dahlkemper were just two of the casualties the pro-life Democratic caucus suffered in 2010. (Davis was also ousted, along with Jim Oberstar, Steve Driehaus, Travis Childers, and Bobby Bright—all of whom received help at some point from Democrats for Life.) Yet even in defeat, they remained conflicted to the point of incoherence.
Stupak, for instance, told the audience that he remains “a proud and faithful pro-life Democrat” and called Obamacare “the greatest program since Medicare and Social Security.” Dahlkemper likewise defended the law maintaining that “people who are radically anti-government, who are pro-birth only, will not reduce the incidence of abortion in this country.”
At the same time, they seemed indignant at some of Obamacare’s particulars. Asked about the HHS decision to force religious non-profits to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, Stupak exploded:
I’m perplexed and disappointed having negotiated the executive order with the president. Not only does that HHS mandate violate the executive order, it also violates statutory law—if you go back to the Omnibus Budget Act of 2009 passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and signed by President Obama, that’s probably the most specific, articulate language that no funds can be used to promote abortion . . . It’s illegal.It’s a fascinating case study in political schizophrenia: Bart Stupak was stampeded into voting for a bill which he didn’t particularly like and must have realized was going to end his political career. The only thing he got in return was a fig-leaf executive order, which the president quickly violated. And today he supports Obamacare and the president more unequivocally than he did three years ago. How can that be?***It turns out that pro-life Democrats have one final justification. Now that they’ve been compromised into supporting the expansion of abortion by Obama they’re insisting that Republicans would only cause more abortions. And that’s where Stephen Schneck comes in.Schneck is director of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies and, as he notes with a smile, associated with the group Catholics for Obama. (He’s the only member of the panel who does not voice opposition to the HHS mandate.) Schneck believes that “The most powerful abortifacient in America is poverty.” He calls the Romney-Ryan ticket “frightening.” And then he asks,Can a pro-life voter vote for Romney if it means a six, or a seven, or God forbid an eight percent increase in the number of abortions in America? If it means thousands of new deaths among the unborn?When pressed to show his work on why he believes there would be a massive increase in abortion under Romney, Schneck explains that a third of births are covered by Medicaid, Romney would cut Medicaid by 40 percent, and so, ipso facto, a large percentage of Medicaid births would necessarily be converted to abortions. It’s an amazing claim.But it’s the only straw left for the pro-life Democrats to grasp. Where they once opposed abortion, however ineffectually, they’re now reduced to actively supporting it—while inventing an alternate universe in which the anti-abortion policies of Republicans actually cause more of them. And if you can’t quite bring yourself to believe it? Then the foundation crumbles. And you either decide to stop being pro-life or stop being a Democrat.Which is why pro-life Democrats are quickly becoming extinct.
Venezuela Holds U.S. Vessel And Crew On Suspicion Of Arms Trafficking
9/06/2012 @ 3:55PM, Forbes
Incredibly, my Forbes colleague Jeff Bercovici has been in touch over email with one of the crewmen, Russell Macomber, who has managed to post updates to his Facebook account while under detention. In a sardonic tone, he even relayed that when Venezuelan authorities raided the Ocean Atlas they stole cartons of cigarettes, ate the crew’s ice cream and let their dogs defecate on the deck. Macomber writes that he would like nothing more than an airdrop of Budweiser. (Read Jeff’s post and Macomber’s account here.)
Officials at the ship’s operator, Intermarine, did not immediately respond to Forbes’ requests for information. Nor did officials at American Maritime Officers, which is believed to have provided the crew for the ship. A spokeswoman at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington said she would look into the incident.
A spokesman for the Seafarers Union confirmed the seizure to Forbes and said, “The SIU is working feverishly to help resolve this situation and to ensure the safety of all mariners aboard the Ocean Atlas. We are staying in touch with the crew and will continue doing so.”
A U.S. Embassy official in Caracas also confirmed the incident to Reuters earlier today.
The seizure of the ship could become an international incident if not resolved soon. A month ago Venezuela detained a U.S. citizen entering from Colombia. President Hugo Chavez accused the man of being a mercenary and part of an “imperial” plot to oust him. So far there has been no public comment from Chavez about the Ocean Atlas detention.
The 12-year-old Ocean Atlas is one of a very small number of U.S.-flagged heavy-lift vessels. Its cranes can lift 400 tons and its giant holds are ideal for hauling hauls boats, generators, and oilfield equipment. It often moves cargoes under contract with the U.S. government or for projects financed by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which requires U.S. flagged ships to carry any cargoes it has financed.
A decade ago the ship carried oilfield equipment to Iraq. And according to a backgrounder on Globalsecurity.org, it also made a special trip to Libya:
So was Ocean Atlas carrying weapons this time, on another top secret U.S. mission? No, says Macomber; nothing but three rifles in case they needed to ward off pirates.
Incredibly, my Forbes colleague Jeff Bercovici has been in touch over email with one of the crewmen, Russell Macomber, who has managed to post updates to his Facebook account while under detention. In a sardonic tone, he even relayed that when Venezuelan authorities raided the Ocean Atlas they stole cartons of cigarettes, ate the crew’s ice cream and let their dogs defecate on the deck. Macomber writes that he would like nothing more than an airdrop of Budweiser. (Read Jeff’s post and Macomber’s account here.)
Officials at the ship’s operator, Intermarine, did not immediately respond to Forbes’ requests for information. Nor did officials at American Maritime Officers, which is believed to have provided the crew for the ship. A spokeswoman at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington said she would look into the incident.
A spokesman for the Seafarers Union confirmed the seizure to Forbes and said, “The SIU is working feverishly to help resolve this situation and to ensure the safety of all mariners aboard the Ocean Atlas. We are staying in touch with the crew and will continue doing so.”
A U.S. Embassy official in Caracas also confirmed the incident to Reuters earlier today.
The seizure of the ship could become an international incident if not resolved soon. A month ago Venezuela detained a U.S. citizen entering from Colombia. President Hugo Chavez accused the man of being a mercenary and part of an “imperial” plot to oust him. So far there has been no public comment from Chavez about the Ocean Atlas detention.
The 12-year-old Ocean Atlas is one of a very small number of U.S.-flagged heavy-lift vessels. Its cranes can lift 400 tons and its giant holds are ideal for hauling hauls boats, generators, and oilfield equipment. It often moves cargoes under contract with the U.S. government or for projects financed by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which requires U.S. flagged ships to carry any cargoes it has financed.
A decade ago the ship carried oilfield equipment to Iraq. And according to a backgrounder on Globalsecurity.org, it also made a special trip to Libya:
The ship became the first U.S. vessel to dock in Libya in 20 years.The Department of State requested that the vessel be quietly diverted to Libya, where under special security cover, the vessel was loaded in its entirety with equipment from Libya’s nuclear and other WMD programs arsenal. They included specialized centrifuges used in the processing of uranium to weapons grade, equipment from a uranium conversion facility, and Libya’s five SCUD-C long-range missiles. The cargo was discharged at an undisclosed U.S. East Coast port. The Libyan cargo move was truly a spur-of-the-moment operation.
So was Ocean Atlas carrying weapons this time, on another top secret U.S. mission? No, says Macomber; nothing but three rifles in case they needed to ward off pirates.
Thought Police Patrol Convention’s Radio Row
Conservative talk-show hosts who came to Charlotte to interview political figures are furious. For the first time in anyone’s memory, Radio Row — the designated set of booths available to visiting talk-show hosts — has seen restrictions placed on its use by Team Obama. DNC staffers at Radio Row will book leading Democrats for slots on conservative stations but then cancel the appearances an hour or so before broadcast “because you’re not our audience.”
“According to sources at Talk Radio News Service, placing a stringer outside the designated TV area to ask high-level Democrats to stop by radio row has also been banned by the DNC,” Ben Shapiro wrote at Breitbart’s Big Journalism:
When I approached liberal activist John Podesta about appearing on KRLA’s “Heidi Harris Show” along with me and my co-hosts Heidi Harris (conservative) and Brian Whitman (liberal), his handler quickly intervened. Later, the handler stopped by to clarify: did the show have two liberals and one conservative, or two conservatives and one liberal? When I stated that it had two conservatives and one liberal, he quickly shook his head and sprinted away.So much for the transparency and openness of the Obama era
Same Sex Marriage Will Have Chilling Effect on Religious Freedom
September 6, 2012
Only weeks before voters in the state of Washington will vote on a new state law allowing same-sex marriage, the state’s bishops issued a statement warning the public that changing the definition of marriage will have a chilling effect on religious liberty.
The bishops issued their statement in anticipation of the November 6 ballot measure known as Referendum 74 in which the people of Washington State will vote to “approve” or “reject” a new law that legalizes marriage between couples of the same sex. The law was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year but was blocked from going into effect after the citizenry gathered enough signatures to allow a public vote on the matter this November.
With polls showing increasing support for same-sex marriage, the bishops of Washington State have launched an aggressive campaign to educate people on the value of traditional marriage and what could happen to society and particularly to children if homosexual unions are approved.
“If the state successfully disconnects marriage from the potential inherent to sexual union between a man and woman, the civil meaning of marriage will be lost, and the institution that results will be a genderless contract without reference to children,” the bishops write.
“The foundational nature of marriage for the good and the strength of human society will be harmed beyond repair. Faithful, monogamous marriages between one man and one woman will cease to be the legally-established social standard for uniting children with their parents, even though social science has established that children do best when raised in homes with married mothers and fathers.”
The statement also brings up the fact that religious liberty will suffer if states legalize same-sex unions because churches will be forced to comply even though homosexuality is in violation of their beliefs.
” . . . (T)he legal separation of marriage from procreation would have a chilling effect on religious liberty and the right of conscience,” the bishops state.
“Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique value of children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”
As is already happening throughout the country, no one will be allowed to even suggest that there are any benefits to heterosexual unions or that married heterosexual couples provide singular benefits to children without being accused of discrimination.
“Recent attacks on churches, businesses and nonprofit organizations that express their conscientious objection to the redefinition of marriage underscore the danger. Those who uphold families based on the permanent, faithful relationship between a married man and woman as the best environment for raising children already have been accused of hate speech, and the right of religious institutions to freely practice their faith has been abridged.”
To those who accuse the Church of being homophobic for these beliefs, which is just another form of the religious persecution the bishops warn against, they assert:
“Our support for traditional marriage is not born of bias or intolerance toward anyone. Instead, our purpose is to support the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to promote the common good. We therefore urge Catholic people to uphold our consistent teaching on marriage for the good of the Church, society, spouses and their children. Finally, we reject the redefinition of marriage as a “civil contract between two persons.”
Click here to read the full document.
The bishops issued their statement in anticipation of the November 6 ballot measure known as Referendum 74 in which the people of Washington State will vote to “approve” or “reject” a new law that legalizes marriage between couples of the same sex. The law was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year but was blocked from going into effect after the citizenry gathered enough signatures to allow a public vote on the matter this November.With polls showing increasing support for same-sex marriage, the bishops of Washington State have launched an aggressive campaign to educate people on the value of traditional marriage and what could happen to society and particularly to children if homosexual unions are approved.
“If the state successfully disconnects marriage from the potential inherent to sexual union between a man and woman, the civil meaning of marriage will be lost, and the institution that results will be a genderless contract without reference to children,” the bishops write.
“The foundational nature of marriage for the good and the strength of human society will be harmed beyond repair. Faithful, monogamous marriages between one man and one woman will cease to be the legally-established social standard for uniting children with their parents, even though social science has established that children do best when raised in homes with married mothers and fathers.”
The statement also brings up the fact that religious liberty will suffer if states legalize same-sex unions because churches will be forced to comply even though homosexuality is in violation of their beliefs.
” . . . (T)he legal separation of marriage from procreation would have a chilling effect on religious liberty and the right of conscience,” the bishops state.
“Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique value of children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”
As is already happening throughout the country, no one will be allowed to even suggest that there are any benefits to heterosexual unions or that married heterosexual couples provide singular benefits to children without being accused of discrimination.
“Recent attacks on churches, businesses and nonprofit organizations that express their conscientious objection to the redefinition of marriage underscore the danger. Those who uphold families based on the permanent, faithful relationship between a married man and woman as the best environment for raising children already have been accused of hate speech, and the right of religious institutions to freely practice their faith has been abridged.”
To those who accuse the Church of being homophobic for these beliefs, which is just another form of the religious persecution the bishops warn against, they assert:
“Our support for traditional marriage is not born of bias or intolerance toward anyone. Instead, our purpose is to support the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to promote the common good. We therefore urge Catholic people to uphold our consistent teaching on marriage for the good of the Church, society, spouses and their children. Finally, we reject the redefinition of marriage as a “civil contract between two persons.”
Click here to read the full document.
At Democratic convention, ‘Nuns on the Bus’ sister rips Ryan budget, says USCCB backs her views
CWN - September 06, 2012
Hours after telling a reporter that she does not know whether abortion should be illegal, the executive director of the social justice lobby Network addressed the Democratic National Convention and blasted the budget proposed by vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. “Paul Ryan claims his budget reflects the principles of our shared Catholic faith,” Sister Simone Campbell told the delegates. “But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the Ryan budget failed a basic moral test, because it would harm families living in poverty.” “We agree with our bishops, and that's why we went on the road: to stand with struggling families and to lift up our Catholic sisters who serve them,” she added. “Their work to alleviate suffering would be seriously harmed by the Romney-Ryan budget, and that is wrong.” 
Sister Campbell, who revealed in a June talk that she is uncomfortable calling herself pro-life, also said that her support of President Barack Obama’s healthcare program is part of her “pro-life stance.” “We all share responsibility to ensure that this vital health care reform law is properly implemented and that all governors expand Medicaid coverage,” she said. “This is part of my pro-life stance and the right thing to do.” Sister Campbell attracted national media attention early this summer when she organized a “Nuns on the Bus” tour to protest the Ryan budget plan. She and the Network lobby have been prominent in their support of liberal social programs, including the Obama administration's health-care reform. In June, a Charlotte newspaper reported that in an appearance there Sister Campbell had "scorned the US bishops for their continued opposition to the health insurance law." In April, a Vatican critique of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious cited the group's ties with Network as a source of concern, noting the failure of the group to take a public stand in defense of human life. Sister Campbell’s statement about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ criticism of the Ryan budget is a reference to a May letter by Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, the chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. “The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,” Bishop Blaire said in his letter to all members of the House of Representatives. “However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.” During the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ June meeting, Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing criticized the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for its opposition to the budget plan put forward by Ryan. “There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.” “I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].” Echoing Bishop Boyea’s comments, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City said at the June bishops’ meeting that the committee is “at times perceived as partisan” and needs to consider the principle of subsidiarity, which has been “neglected in past documents.” In August, Ryan’s own bishop came to his defense. Making clear that he was endorsing no candidate, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison praised Ryan as a Catholic who “is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles” of Catholic social doctrine. “It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties,” he said before distinguishing between intrinsic evils and policy decisions on which Catholics of good will may legitimately disagree. “Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests,” Bishop Morlino added. “Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of … Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above.”
Today on "Kresta in the Afternoon" - September 6, 2012
Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 6
4:00 – Kresta Comments
4:20 – Living Our Catholic Creed
Nationally & internationally known for her music and speaking engagements Julie Carrick brings with her 15 years of ministry and a life of experience that most will relate to. She shares real life lived through joys & sorrows, victories & defeats, and all by the grace and mercy of Christ waiting there to strengthen us all. She is currently on a speaking tour for the year of faith that will take her to at least 15 states and the television studios of EWTN. She is now in MI and joins us in studio.
4:40 – Kresta Comments
5:00 – Why Do Celebrities Seem to Have More Substance Abuse Issues?
From Whitney Houston’s death last year to Rodney King’s recent death, we continue to face the reality that celebrities are very susceptible to substance abuse. This raises the question of why celebrities have a higher rate of substance abuse. Michael Vasquez of the St. Gregory Center for Drug and Alcohol Rehab is here to answer that question.
5:40 – Leading Pro-Life Democrat Speaks Out On 2012 Elections
Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, in his famously blunt speaking style, yesterday labeled Mitt Romney a “fraud” as governor, said that Elizabeth Warren’s US Senate ads have been disappointing and will be changed, and declared that Raymond L. Flynn had abandoned his political past by endorsing Scott Brown. The former governor added: “The Ray Flynn that I worked with then, and I knew and respected, wouldn’t have given Scott Brown the time of day. … Tax cuts for the rich? Repealing Obamacare? Are you kidding me? Flynn? I don’t know what’s happened to him. … Change of life, I don’t know.” Former Ambassador and Boston Mayor Ray Flynn is here to respond.
4:00 – Kresta Comments
4:20 – Living Our Catholic Creed
Nationally & internationally known for her music and speaking engagements Julie Carrick brings with her 15 years of ministry and a life of experience that most will relate to. She shares real life lived through joys & sorrows, victories & defeats, and all by the grace and mercy of Christ waiting there to strengthen us all. She is currently on a speaking tour for the year of faith that will take her to at least 15 states and the television studios of EWTN. She is now in MI and joins us in studio.
4:40 – Kresta Comments
5:00 – Why Do Celebrities Seem to Have More Substance Abuse Issues?
From Whitney Houston’s death last year to Rodney King’s recent death, we continue to face the reality that celebrities are very susceptible to substance abuse. This raises the question of why celebrities have a higher rate of substance abuse. Michael Vasquez of the St. Gregory Center for Drug and Alcohol Rehab is here to answer that question.
5:40 – Leading Pro-Life Democrat Speaks Out On 2012 Elections
Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, in his famously blunt speaking style, yesterday labeled Mitt Romney a “fraud” as governor, said that Elizabeth Warren’s US Senate ads have been disappointing and will be changed, and declared that Raymond L. Flynn had abandoned his political past by endorsing Scott Brown. The former governor added: “The Ray Flynn that I worked with then, and I knew and respected, wouldn’t have given Scott Brown the time of day. … Tax cuts for the rich? Repealing Obamacare? Are you kidding me? Flynn? I don’t know what’s happened to him. … Change of life, I don’t know.” Former Ambassador and Boston Mayor Ray Flynn is here to respond.
Pope Benedict: Faith Must Be Lived With Integrity
“God’s law is his word, which guides man on the path of life, releases him from the slavery of selfishness and introduces him to the ‘land’ of true freedom and life,” the Pope said during his midday Sept. 2 Angelus address.
“For this reason, in the Bible, the Law is not seen as a burden, an overwhelming limitation, but as the Lord’s most precious gift, the testimony of his fatherly love, of his desire to be close to his people, to be their ally and write with his people a love story.”
The Pope made his remarks before several thousand pilgrims who gathered in the courtyard of his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. The picturesque town sits in the hills above Lake Albano, 15 miles southeast of Rome.
But the Pope also warned against the danger of God’s law and religion losing their “true meaning” and become reduced to “a secondary habit.” The real meaning of following God’s law is “to live in listening to God.”
As an example, the Pope pointed towards the Gospel, where Jesus adopted the words of the prophet Isaiah to describe the relationship of the scribes and Pharisees to God. “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.” Jesus summarized their disposition by saying, “You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.”
“This is a serious risk in every religion,” Pope Benedict explained, “which Jesus encountered in his time, but that may occur, unfortunately, even in Christianity.”
Summarizing his thoughts in his address to English-speaking pilgrims, the Pope said that this Gospel “spurs all of us to a greater harmony between the faith we treasure in our hearts and our outward behavior.”
“By God’s grace, may we be purified inside and out, so as to live integrally our commitment to Christ and to his message. God bless all of you!”
The Silence of Bill and Hillary Clinton
Editor’s note: A different version of this article first appeared at National Catholic Register.
Bill Clinton was basking in glory at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night. Few presidents so love the spotlight. The occasion for Clinton, however, was not himself, but the reelection of Barack Obama.
To that end, Clinton’s stumping for Obama presents some interesting contrasts, as the press has noted. Quite unnoticed, however, is a particularly compelling contrast relating to religious freedom—an area where Barack Obama has been a foe, most notably via his terribly intolerant Health and Human Services mandate, and where Bill Clinton has been woefully silent.
For Bill Clinton—and for his wife, Hillary Clinton—that silence is conspicuous. Indeed, it may surprise readers to learn this, but both Clintons have been vigorous defenders of religious freedom. First consider Bill Clinton:
As Clinton stated in his memoirs: “I always felt that protecting religious liberty and making the White House accessible to all religious faiths was an important part of my job.” As president, Clinton practiced what he preached. He championed (among others) the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed 97-3 by the Senate) and the 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. As to the former, Clinton signed it “to protect a reasonable range of religious expression in public areas like schools and workplaces.”
Pointing to these actions and more, my colleague, Dr. Gary Smith, who has studied Bill Clinton’s faith, has rightly described the former president as a “strong advocate” of “religious freedom at home and abroad.”
That’s fair to say. It is likewise true for Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton long supported her husband’s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, especially its promotion of religious freedom in public schools. In her book, “It Takes a Village,” Mrs. Clinton sounded like a conservative when emphasizing the importance of religion in schools. Quoting her husband, she noted that “nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door.” She cited these words from her husband: “[R]eligion is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools.”
Once capable of making law herself, as an elected senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton championed an initiative promoting religious freedom in the workplace. Specifically, in April 2005, Senator Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, joining forces (remarkably) with no less than Senator Rick Santorum, her polar opposite. The law guaranteed the right to religious expression on the job without fear of recrimination. This meant, for example, that an Orthodox Jew who honors the Sabbath cannot be forced to work on the Sabbath against his or her will, or that a Christian can wear a crucifix, or that a Sikh can don a turban. Backers of the bill included a broad coalition of 40 clerics representing nearly every denomination.
The bill, which any reasonable person would support, had opponents among Senator Clinton’s staunchest allies. Predictably, Planned Parenthood and the National Women’s Law Center foresaw calamitous instances of “anti-choice” injustice, such as a situation where a pro-life nurse might request to not provide the “morning-after” pill to a rape victim, or a Catholic pharmacist might as a matter of conscience refuse to dispense birth control. For these “pro-choice” feminists, religious freedom could not be permitted to trump their preeminent freedom: their sacred right to an abortion.
It was this narrow opposition from radical feminists that might have explained why, as the Village Voice put it, “[Mrs.] Clinton’s office has been notably quiet about her involvement” in the bill.
That was then. Today, Mrs. Clinton serves in the Obama administration—though at the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services. And today, Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, is silent on the Obama HHS mandate.
Indeed, that begs the question: Where are the Clintons now, as the current head of their party, President Obama, continues to stubbornly enforce his HHS mandate requiring all Americans, of every religious belief and denomination, to forcibly fund abortion drugs? Have these fighters for religious freedom said anything at all to the president? Have they voiced even a slight objection? To the contrary, in his glowing endorsement of Obama at the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton gushed about Obamacare, with no mention of the HHS mandate.
For that matter, where are the Clintons on Barack Obama’s unprecedented presidential attempt to redefine marriage, which President Bill Clinton once preserved as between a man and a woman when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996?
Or, in the end, are Bill and Hillary Clinton merely two more blindly loyal liberals and partisan Democrats who unquestioningly follow their party’s leader?
Some things are more important than your political party.
Division over platform at DNC
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Two platform planks sparked division at the Democratic National Convention here Wednesday.
Things got so bad that President Barack Obama was forced to personally intervene, ordering language mentioning God and naming Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel be added.
Villaraigosa called for a voice vote on an amendment offered by former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who chaired the platform drafting committee. Facing boos and “nay”s, he tried again, before announcing that in his judgment, a two-thirds majority had approved the measure. He was booed again as he walked off the stage.
A senior White House said Wednesday that the platform dispute was an unfortunate stumble during this week’s convention.
Republicans mocked each subsequent mention of God from the podium as antithetical to the Democratic Party’s platform. GOP rival Mitt Romney released a statement blasting Democrats for leaving Jerusalem out of the platform.
After Villaraigosa announced the platform change, Republicans wasted little time trying to exploit the flip-flop on Jerusalem. Romney has said he’d as president acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which would be a change in longstanding U.S. policy, which has been that all “final status issues” be left to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
“Mitt Romney has consistently stated his belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “Although today’s voice vote at the Democratic National Convention was unclear, the Democratic Party has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Obama has repeatedly refused to say the same himself. Now is the time for President Obama to state in unequivocal terms whether or not he believes Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the platform was changed to “maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the president and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
The division over Israel also flies in the face of a prediction Obama strategist David Axelrod made days earlier on “Fox News Sunday,” when he crowed that Obama’s convention would be free of the sideshows that plagued the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa.
“We don’t have the problems that the other party has,” Axelrod said then. “We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about, you know, what people are saying on the side or about their affection for the president or — we don’t have those problems.”
Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.
Things got so bad that President Barack Obama was forced to personally intervene, ordering language mentioning God and naming Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel be added.
Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, a campaign source said, but did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday. And even then, it had to be forced through a convention hall full of delegates who nearly shouted down the change.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention’s chairman, kicked off Wednesday’s proceedings by trying to clean up a mess Democrats made by omitting from their official party platform mentions of God and of Jerusalem as the preferred capital of Israel.Villaraigosa called for a voice vote on an amendment offered by former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who chaired the platform drafting committee. Facing boos and “nay”s, he tried again, before announcing that in his judgment, a two-thirds majority had approved the measure. He was booed again as he walked off the stage.
A senior White House said Wednesday that the platform dispute was an unfortunate stumble during this week’s convention.Republicans mocked each subsequent mention of God from the podium as antithetical to the Democratic Party’s platform. GOP rival Mitt Romney released a statement blasting Democrats for leaving Jerusalem out of the platform.
After Villaraigosa announced the platform change, Republicans wasted little time trying to exploit the flip-flop on Jerusalem. Romney has said he’d as president acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which would be a change in longstanding U.S. policy, which has been that all “final status issues” be left to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
“Mitt Romney has consistently stated his belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “Although today’s voice vote at the Democratic National Convention was unclear, the Democratic Party has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Obama has repeatedly refused to say the same himself. Now is the time for President Obama to state in unequivocal terms whether or not he believes Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”
The convention language Obama pushed for is somewhat at odds with his own policy. Obama, like predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has every six months waived moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem since Congress voted to move it in 1995. He most recently did so June 1.
The White House directed questions on the topic to the reelection campaign.Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the platform was changed to “maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the president and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
The division over Israel also flies in the face of a prediction Obama strategist David Axelrod made days earlier on “Fox News Sunday,” when he crowed that Obama’s convention would be free of the sideshows that plagued the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa.
“We don’t have the problems that the other party has,” Axelrod said then. “We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about, you know, what people are saying on the side or about their affection for the president or — we don’t have those problems.”
Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Resurrection: DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform
Sorry about the ad. Be patient, the video is worth it.
by Ben Shapiro, 5 Sep 2012, 2:12 PM PDT, Breitbart
The first time, he couldn’t determine if two-thirds of the voters had said “aye”; a loud “no” vote was heard. He asked for a second vote.
The second time, he couldn’t determine whether the voice vote had passed. Again. Villaraigosa looked around in confusion.
Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case – there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in. The Democratic leadership had to ram a mention of God and a mention of Jerusalem through, violating their own rules, to avoid the fallout within their own ranks.
Watch the vote here:
UPDATE: Multiple sources are reporting that this means that the Democrats will reinstate their 2008 language, which reads:
by Ben Shapiro, 5 Sep 2012, 2:12 PM PDT, Breitbart
Tonight, the Democratic National Committee suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language regarding God and the State of Israel back to its platform. They had to vote three times to do it – and they had to lie to deem it passed, even though it was clear that the measure did not pass a voice vote in the chamber. The original 2012 Democratic Party platform had excised all mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.
Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio made the motion to change the platform:This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. I came before you today to discuss the two important matters related to our party's national platform. As an ordained United Methodist Minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the value we have expressed in our party's platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party's platform should as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the head of the Democratic National Convention, got up and asked for a two-thirds vote on the amendments to the platform. He took a voice vote, with people stating aloud “aye” and “nay.”
The first time, he couldn’t determine if two-thirds of the voters had said “aye”; a loud “no” vote was heard. He asked for a second vote.
The second time, he couldn’t determine whether the voice vote had passed. Again. Villaraigosa looked around in confusion.
Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case – there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in. The Democratic leadership had to ram a mention of God and a mention of Jerusalem through, violating their own rules, to avoid the fallout within their own ranks.
Watch the vote here:
UPDATE: Multiple sources are reporting that this means that the Democrats will reinstate their 2008 language, which reads:
The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.Sources also report that the language was changed "to reflect the president's personal view." This is bull. President Obama has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and neither has his spokesperson or State Department. He has never taken a public position against the so-called "right of return," which would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. And he has publicly stated that Israel should use the 1949 armistice lines as the baseline of any future negotiations. This was obviously a political move designed to prevent disillusioned Jewish voters from leaving the Democratic voters in droves. If Jews are smart -- and if they watch this tape -- they'll realize that the base of the Democratic Party simply does not support Israel, even if the DNC quashes their votes.
In This Together
How Catholics can overcome partisan divisions
Catholics who are serious about their faith and want to live it out in the public arena are challenged in today’s political environment. The choice of a party is difficult. The parties themselves have serious flaws, and they often appear to flaunt precisely the issues most at odds with Catholic teaching. This teaching is rooted in the reverential respect and protection of the life and dignity of every human from conception to natural death. Our country’s founders employed the phrase “self-evident truth” to convey the universal applicability of such teaching.
To their credit, Democrats have for at least a century recognized that government has a legitimate role in helping the poor and vulnerable. But these days Democrats more often grab headlines through their efforts to redefine marriage or by trying to determine which church activity is “religious” or by attempting to force Catholic institutions to provide employee health coverage for sterilizations and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs. To their credit, Republicans for the last 40 years have opposed the abortion-approving Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and have espoused family values. But Republicans now make headlines by advocating the slashing of federal programs, including those for the poor, and proposing anti-immigrant legislation.
Catholics have responded in various ways. Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist and Catholic convert, says Catholics use their most deeply held values, whether that means defense of the unborn or care for the poor, to choose a party, but sooner or later they join “the side they’re on.” This is the opposite of what the U.S. bishops advocate in their document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” “As Catholics,” it says, “we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths.”
The idea is that Catholics should work within their parties to change them, creating a diverse and substantial group motivated not so much by ideology but by challenging cultural issues, large and small.
This is easier said than done. The bishops are asking Catholics to raise uncomfortable issues in sometimes exceedingly hostile environments. Many Democrats have worked strenuously since Roe v. Wade to purge dissenters on legalized abortion from party ranks. They have succeeded to the extent that pro-life Democrats find themselves in a no-man’s land, often reviled for their views and distrusted by pro-lifers because of their party affiliation. More recently, Republicans have sought to purify party ranks of even the slightest variations from party orthodoxy. Republican candidates and legislators espouse increasingly hard-line positions punitive to immigrants and cut disproportionately programs that help the poor.
In this partisan environment, Catholics may feel “politically homeless,” to borrow a phrase from John Carr, executive director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The parties’ retreat from the ideological center has left Catholics with the understandable, but unfortunate impression that their only political option is to choose a side and join in to win the culture war. The resulting toxic acrimony has long since seeped into the church. Catholics must reverse this trend.
A Faith-Based Worldview
<!- BEGIN ADVERTPRO CODE BLOCK ->
<!- END ADVERTPRO CODE BLOCK->
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago has advocated an end to the fixation over whether someone is a “progressive Catholic,” an “orthodox Catholic,” a “Vatican II Catholic” or a “traditionalist Catholic.” He urges instead a focus on being “simply Catholic.” In his final presidential address to the U.S. bishops, Cardinal George observed, “For too many, politics is the ultimate horizon of their thinking and acting,” and the value of the church’s role in public discourse is judged by how it will serve a partisan agenda.Catholics must reject this mentality and act in a way that reflects a belief in a higher truth, seeing a greater horizon beyond that of a partisan agenda. This is the essence of “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which urges Catholics to place the church’s priority teachings at the heart of their worldview and moral decision-making. Practically speaking, this means that political positions should be judged by how well they express the values and truths of the faith, not the other way around. This requires examination of conscience and individual conversion. It requires Catholic voters honest enough not to ignore principle in favor of partisan preference. It requires legislators brave enough to risk the acceptance of their caucus and support among their constituents. It also requires a significant increase in trust and acceptance of people’s good will at face value. In a scorched-earth political climate, partisans seldom raise a concern or value of the other side unless it is to denigrate it (call it socialist, anti-woman, etc.) or to say why it should not matter.
U.S. Catholics make up 29 percent of the current Congress—far more than any other single religious denomination—and hold 17 of 50 governorships. If any group can make an impact by unifying around its core principles, it is this formidable, diverse and culturally eclectic group. Pundits and pollsters point out that in the last few election cycles the candidate who has won the Catholic vote has also won the White House. But Catholics do not vote as a bloc, nor will they in the foreseeable future. Still, Catholics can make a positive difference on society.
Latino Catholics provide some hope. With strong pro-life, pro-family sensibilities and pro-poor and pro-immigrant views, they defy easy classification. They could transform either party that welcomes them and their concerns—a model for other U.S. Catholics. Pioneering modern Catholic social teaching in 1891 with his encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” Pope Leo XIII proposed a middle way between the socialist and laissez-faire philosophies of the day. A case could be made today that a unified Catholic effort could bring both major parties to openness toward Catholic views.
One can only imagine the increased appeal of a Republican Party that extends its pro-life concerns to the years between birth and infirmity and applies its family values to poor and immigrant families. The same goes for a Democratic Party that embraces the challenge to society made by Edward Kennedy in 1971, to “fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception,” a challenge later abandoned.
Toward the Catholic Vision
One catalyst for promoting such a change should be the realization by people of both parties that they need each other to accomplish even their partisan political goals. Sometimes conservative goals have liberal solutions and vice versa. Both parties should pursue the common good more than partisan advantage. For instance, as Catholics work for legal protection for the unborn as a matter of justice, they can also advance pro-life goals by strengthening and enforcing anti-discrimination laws for pregnant women in the workforce. And they can advocate for more generous parental-leave benefits. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not require employers to provide paid parental leave for workers. If Bolivia and Haiti, among the poorest countries in this hemisphere, can offer two and three months of paid leave, the United States—among the richest nations in history—can certainly do more. Increased attention to this issue would show that the United States places a high value on human life. And it would help forge a cultural perception that pregnant women really do have options and that abortion does not have to be tolerated, even as a “necessary evil.” The pro-life cause is also helped by making poor families a priority instead of an afterthought, so that no one can hide behind the excuse that people need abortions because “they just can’t afford another child.”Meanwhile, the challenges of the highest domestic poverty rate in 15 years are too great for one party or philosophy to solve. Democrats must take seriously the concerns of Republicans that the government cannot be all things to all people. Republicans must take seriously the concerns of Democrats that the government has a role to play. Members of both parties must acknowledge the risk of future unsustainable deficits and put everything on the table to address the problem, including revenue, unnecessary defense spending, and just and fair entitlement reform.
The Catholic vision is one of collaboration, not coercion, among individuals, governments, businesses and other institutions. Its focus is not on profit or a winning ideology. Its focus is on creating conditions in which people can develop and ultimately flourish, in which their lives enjoy non-negotiable protection from conception to natural death, and thus can fully reflect the dignity God intended. This applies to every level, from individual to global. Following the principle of subsidiarity, the Catholic vision is to ensure that problems are tackled in the best possible context and that all stakeholders meet their responsibilities to one another. Subsidiarity locates responsibility at the lowest feasible level of society and requires other levels to support them in meeting their responsibilities. Both parties lack this vision or at least do not trust each other enough to make decisions that favor the common good consistently. Catholics could help and lead by example.
Catholicism has appeal across centuries, cultures and ideologies. Today the church can evangelize by working among people with various perspectives to counter the excesses of ideology. It might often make people angry, but it also would make the Catholic voice more difficult to ignore, elevating it above mere partisan agendas. It would give the church renewed credibility as a moral voice and force in the culture. In the words of “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” “We are called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our values and our votes, to help build a better world.”
Most Rev. Richard E. Pates is bishop of Des Moines and chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Today on "Kresta in the Afternoon" - Sept. 5, 2012
Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 5
4:00 – 6:00 – Direct to My Desk
Today we allow you to set the agenda with your questions and comments. Some things that will be discussed include 1) a comparison of the abortion, marriage and religious freedom planks of the Republican and Democrat platforms. 2) why the DNC stripped all references to God in their platform language 3) the significance and impact of the now deceased Sun Myung Moon, and much more. Be with us and be ready to call 877-573-7825.
4:00 – 6:00 – Direct to My Desk
Today we allow you to set the agenda with your questions and comments. Some things that will be discussed include 1) a comparison of the abortion, marriage and religious freedom planks of the Republican and Democrat platforms. 2) why the DNC stripped all references to God in their platform language 3) the significance and impact of the now deceased Sun Myung Moon, and much more. Be with us and be ready to call 877-573-7825.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
