NOW Obama Wants Compromise...

So, Obama at Notre Dame says we should learn to politely disagree, compromise even.

Wish he'd thought that back when he was running for office. Or even before he threatened bank CEO's with mob violence if they didn't bend over & drop their drawers for him. Except he doesn't really think it now. Compromise, for Obama, means not opposing him. Instead, we conservatives, particularly those of us who believe human life should be protected at all stages of development - we're the ones who are supposed to be polite and bring a toothpick to a knife fight.

It's time to stop the genuflecting to "politeness". The destruction of unborn human beings is evil and must be brought to an end. No, I am not advocating mob violence. We are not the state and we do not have the right to kill or maim others in this process, but neither do we have to be nice and not call evil by its proper name.

So, in the interest of honesty, Obama is wrong. He advocates an unlimited abortion license up to and including those who are born alive when an attempted abortion fails to kill. He would sweep away parental consent laws, informed consent laws, restrictions on taxpayer subsidies of abortion, restrictions on methods of abortion (such as the infamous "partial birth" method), gestation restrictions, and anything else that might in any way hinder the ability of a woman to kill her children either prior to or during the birth process.

There is no compromise possible between the wrongness and evil of this position and that of the Catholic Church's correct (and morrally right) view that the unborn should be protected as should all innocent human life. The bishop is correct to refuse attendance at the commencement as well as to publicly chastise the president of Notre Dame for his short-sighted and rebellious decision. May God have mercy on Fr. Jenkins that he might see the error of his ways and repent - both of his complicity in the sin of abortion and of his rebellion against the authority of the Church he vowed to uphold and obey.


CRC by the Marks of the True Church - 1 for 3?

If you follow things over at the CRC's Banner web site, you'll find the editor's blog. One of the things that has become evident in that blog's discussion of homosexuality and homosexual behavior is how adolescent we have become.

Arguments for approving homosexual behavior amount to: 1) We have to be nice; 2) people who tell homosexual's they're being bad are mean, judgmental, and cruel; 3) Gay people are nice people, so it must be OK; and 4) the Bible says to love them and that means we have to accept them no matter what they do.

In the process, those advocating approval of homosexual behavior tend to assert that words have no fixed meaning, that the Bible has no fixed meaning, that it's arrogant to be sure, that the discussion is analogous to discussions on race and gender, and that it's impossible to really know anything - except that those who think they know something are wrong.

The Belgic Confession, a defining credal statement of the CRC, says that there are three marks of the True Church: 1) The pure preaching of the Gospel; 2) The pure administration of the sacraments; and 3) The exercise of Church discipline for the correcting of faults.

In order to be nice to homosexuals, these people essentially argue that there is no Gospel (if neither words nor the Word have any fixed meaning, then there is no Gospel to speak of) and that exercising church discipline is mean, judgmental and unloving.

What kind of church does that leave us with, then?

Obama Admits it Won't Work. Tries It Anyway.

Here's an article in Bloomberg (hat tip: Yuval Levin at NRO's Corner) in which Obama is quoted as saying he knows we're borrowing too much money, that it is unjustifiable, that it puts the nation at risk, and so on.

Which begs the question, why then is he insisting on borrowing more money in 3 years than the United States has borrowed during the whole 233 prior years of its existence? Why is he still proposing federal take-over of health care that can only add to the federal debt? Why is he expanding Medicare when it is already bankrupt? Why is he ignoring Social Security's looming bankruptcy?

Does he want to destroy the country that elected him? If not, then why is he pursuing policies he knows will not work?

It's a puzzle, I say. A puzzle.


Only in Washington...

The President, say the headlines, is proposing $17 billion in "cuts" to the Federal budget.

He is also proposing a $3,500 billion budget for FY 2010.

President Bush proposed a $3,100 billion budget for FY 2009.

Could somebody explain to me how increasing the budget by $400 billion is a cut? Let's put this in a home situation.

"Dear, we need to cut back on spending. Our credit cards are too high and the interest is killing us."

"How about if I don't buy the new computer I was planning on and we buy a new car instead?"

Apparently in Washington, D.C. this would be a budget cut. Out in the rest of the world, it would just be stupid.


Swine, er, Mexi-, er, H1N1 Influenza-A B C D E F...

Well, well, well. Let's look at this little news blurb from FoxNews.
Health experts walked a tightrope Sunday, unsure whether the swine flu epidemic was starting to fizzle out or was just in a lull before another surge...
In other words, "We don't want to say that we encouraged a world-wide panic over nothing much, but maybe we did."

The population of this planet is somewhere over 6 billion souls. The World Health Organization has confirmed something like 800 cases, most in Mexico and countries that do a lot of business with Mexico. That's one out of every 7,500,000 people who gets it. Even in the US, where we've had about 150 cases, we're still talking 1 out of every 2,000,000 coming down with the flu.

Of these 800 cases, 12 have died - 11 in Mexico and one toddler who crossed into the United States before he died. The lethality of this flu, like its symptoms, are about the same as every other flu virus that has afflicted humanity. It's treatable, though people with suppressed immune systems or otherwise not in good health (often the very old, very young, or very poor) may die from it - just like any other flu virus.

But this is being called a "pandemic". Nonsense on stilts. It has the potential to become a pandemic, but so does every flu virus that makes the rounds. "Scientists warn that the virus could mutate into a much deadlier form." Golly! Let's all run around like headless chickens! That should help!

Couldn't we say that about every virus - flu, cold, HIV, or what have you? Frankly, I'm sick of scientists' warning. Scientists warn about global warming - as we have the coldest year in decades. Scientists warn about ozone holes that never materialize. Scientists warn about overpopulation and coming ice ages and nuclear winters and spanking children and not spanking children and anything else they can think of. Scientists make their money by scaring the public into turning over vast quantities of cash for "research".

And stupid, mindless sheep who call themselves "journalists" and "political leaders" blindly follow along into the panic.

Of course, if they don't panic, and some unfortunate soul does come down with the flu, rest assured that there will be a lawyer standing right next to the poor sod's bedside discussing litigation options. Better to look silly by panicking than to face a tort lawyer.


Bored Senators

Gee. The United States Senate must not have a lot to do. I suppose they cleared their calendar so they could review and vote on all of Obama's nominees - he's running a bit behind on that, in case you didn't notice - and so they're bored at the moment. In any event, there are at least two of them (Harkin and Murkowski) who want the entire Senate to consider what goes in vending machines at schools. No, not colleges, but high schools and middle schools.

Does it occur to these paragons of virtue that maybe there are parents, local administrators, school boards, county or city councils, state legislatures and so on who may just be competent enough to decide such questions? Do we really need 100 over-paid busy-bodies concerning their empty little heads with this?

This used to be a federal republic. That is, certain things were left to locals to decide and only big things - like war, ports, canals, interstate highways, and so on - were handled by the central government. No longer. Speed limits, drinking age, seat belt use, and now whether or not little Johnny can buy a Coke at school are all under the watchful eye of our government in Washington, D.C.

We need to pay them less. Maybe then they'll work less and we'll all be safer.