Presidential Election Round-Up

Here are some quick links related to the upcoming election. Most of them are pretty serious, but the last two are somewhat light-hearted:

CatholicVote.com: Video

CatholicVote.com: Barack Obama on the Issues of Importance to Catholics

Fr. Thomas Berg: Expect Obama to Sign FOCA in the first 100 days

Associated Press: Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

So Long, Democrats: A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on why she's voting McCain

Domenico Bettinelli: Does campaign behind-the-scenes presage the administration?

Creative Minority Report: Obama's Secret Police

Rush Limbaugh: Don't Talk to Your Girlfriend Like Democrats Talk About America

Revelation: Obama May Have Been a Fetus

Put your money where your mouth is

Barack Obama strongly supports giving financial aid to the poor and less fortunate when other people's money is on the line (i.e., through government spending, which of course is financed by taxpayers like you and me). So surely he must set a good example by making generous charitable donations with his own money, right? Apparently not. (Though in charity to Senator Obama, I do hope that there is more to the story.)

This reminds me of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's Tax Me More Fund, where he invited tax-increase advocates to voluntarily contribute some of their own money to the state treasury, in order to set an example of their willingness to pay higher taxes. Not surprisingly, the fund generated very little money. And studies have shown that on average (with many individual exceptions, I'm sure) conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals do. Arthur Brooks has written an entire book on this subject, called Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Here is an excerpt from the book:

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish....

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

(read more)

Of course, it should be noted that despite the overall trend, there are certainly many liberals who are very generous with their own money, and some of them may even be politicians. Also, it is certainly possible for a politician to be a hypocrite and still make good policy proposals. But politicians like Senator Obama (and others), who call for increased government spending on social programs, would have a bit more credibility (with me anyway) if they first put their own money where their mouth is. I still might disagree with them, but at least I would be more inclined to listen.

Reason #3 why I will not be voting for Barack Obama

Reason #3: When asked if there was any statement or vote that he would like to take back, Senator Obama could have mentioned his opposition to legal protection for babies born alive in a botched abortion (which happens to be my reason #1 for not voting for Senator Obama). Instead, he said that he regrets his very minor role in standing up for Terri Schiavo's right to life.

American Papist and the Christian Post have the details at the following links:

Obama's biggest regret? Not more energetically letting Terri Schiavo die
Obama Under Fire for Terri Schiavo Remark

Some background on Terri Schiavo:

Terri's Story: Timeline
Terri's Story: FAQ

Reason #2 why I will not be voting for Barack Obama

Reason #2: One of the most important jobs of the president is to appoint judges. Yet Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand a judge's proper role.

Again, Terry Jeffrey of Cybercast News makes the case:

Obama's Class-War Court

When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over the "strong." . . .

So, in Obama's vision, who are the "weak" and who are the "strong"? Who deserves to win the "hearts" of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?

In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama's Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong. . . .

Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge's testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is "weak" and who is "strong" in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.

"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them," said Roberts. "I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game -- consistently pitching and batting for Obama's favorite teams.

So to continue with the baseball analogy, if Senator Obama were in charge of hiring umpires for a game between the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, would he hire only those umpires who agreed that all close calls should go in favor of the Devil Rays, simply because they have a much smaller payroll than the Yankees? Baseball isn't supposed to work that way. Is this the way our court system should work?

Nevertheless, I can understand how a person could say that court cases are much more important than baseball games, so we should give the benefit of the doubt to the little guy. And I can very much sympathize with that point of view. But the problem I see is this: Who is the little guy? And who gets to decide who is the little guy? Obama might see the little guy as minorities, or the poor, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But he clearly doesn't include unborn children in the "little guy" category, while I and others would put them at the top of the list.

So then how about appointing judges who will follow the law and the facts of the case as impartially as they can, rather than trying to tilt the balance toward whoever their particular favored groups happen to be? Wouldn't that be the most fair approach for everyone, since we're not all going to agree on who falls into the "little guy" category?

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

Clearly the answer is no, but many people seem to be talking about him in messianic terms, as catalogued at this interesting blog.

Reason #1 why I will not be voting for Barack Obama

Reason #1: Senator Obama is radically pro-abortion, so much so that he opposed legislation to protect babies who are born alive during a botched abortion. I'm talking here about babies who have already been born, who are fully outside their mother's womb, who are breathing, crying, and struggling for life -- and who sadly had often been left to die in the absence of legal protection.

Terry Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service presents some details:

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons." . . .

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." . . .

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no." . . .

The article goes on to explain how a similar bill passed the U.S. Senate (which Obama was not yet a member of at that time) by a vote of 98-0. Therefore, one could draw the conclusion that Obama's opposition to the essentially equivalent bill at the state level makes him more radically pro-abortion than just about any other member of the U.S. Senate.

Terry Jeffrey also has a follow-up piece here:

More on Obama and Babies Born Alive

"Imposing Our Beliefs"

I recently found this excellent article by Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk.  For those who aren't familiar with his name, Fr. Pacholczyk (or Fr. Tad, as he is often called by people -- like me -- who have trouble pronouncing his last name) is a Catholic priest with a doctorate in neuroscience, and he is the director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center.  He is also an expert on the moral and ethical issues involved in embryonic stem cell research.  In the article I linked, Fr. Tad gives a great rebuttal to the common argument that we should not legislate against embryonic stem cell research (or abortion, or euthanasia, etc.), because to do so would be to "impose our beliefs" on others.  Here is part of Fr. Tad's response:

Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research. After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. "Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don't you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?" The senator's question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.

Two major errors were incorporated into the senator's question. First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else. Imposition is the name of the game. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don't want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don't want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don't want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is instead whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.

The second logical mistake the senator made was to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law....

Click here to read the rest of the article.