Where is the civil rights movement for in-utero persons? They are the product of human conception, so they’re not animal vegetable or mineral, but human. They are biologically replete, therefore, being. Human beings have protection as persons according to our Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment: citizens born or naturalized have enumerated rights, while “no person” [including the not yet born, and not naturalized] “shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.” This nation is breaking its highest order of law to allow these abortions. It is the taking of personal human life without due process of law.

Separation of church and state is not only embedded in the Constitution, it remains a very good idea for conservatives to respect it. For example, John Paul II strongly condemned the USinvasion of Iraq, the subsequent war and the continued US occupation. That position remains that of the Church. The Catholic Church also demands social and economic justice of a kind that almost all American conservatives would oppose. American Catholic bishops also are on record of oppsoing the use of nucelar weapons under ANY conditions, including retaliation for a nuclear strikes against US targets.
So be careful what you wish for and remember: alliances come at a price.

Willing to die for unborn children? Am I getting this right? What about born living children? Why werent they “willing to die” when living children were getting molested?

Would be quite appropriate for the Cross Dressing Pedophiles to immolate themselves in the name of their cause. Then they would truly be Flaming Queens.

A few comments –

1.  Hey Yo Jimba – Is “yo jimba” ebonics for douche?
2.  Rick M – Oh you hater and a dumb one to boot. I have a question for a “tool” like you….where in the US do we find the highest incidents of child molestation? Give up? The public school system. There are on average 10,000 reports of abuse in the public school system every year. Compare this to the 1,000ish against priests since 1960. Also, what is the sexual orientation of said pedophiles?  You guessed it….homo’s like yourself.
3.  Brian R. Sullivan – You are wrong … there is no official separation of church and state to be found within the Constitution. The only provision is not for an official church like in England. This concept of separation of church and state has come from the courts.
4.  The Bishops – Where were you guys during the election. You all knew that Obama favored infanticide but said nothing. SHAME ON YOU!

Cheers.

Nuke08 -

Cheers?! That ending brought real cognitive dissonance to your message.

Rick M – There is room for beginning again in the Christian life. If our failures in the past meant we were condemned never to begin again, what would be the point of living?

Clayton – Cheers is just a generic sign-off that can actually mean many things. It can range from good-bye to “I have two words for you and they ain’t love ya”. Cheers.

Even though Obama says he’s a christian his actions have proved that this will not be a driving force in his administration.  Sorry but he can’t please everybody even though his campaign said he could.  Bishops will lose this battle.

- Todd Charske

Brian will you please explain exactly where the separation of church and state are “imbedded” in the constitution?  And how exactly is the beginning of a human being a matter of the church?
After all if the conception of a new human being is a matter of the church, then how does an atheist get pregnant?

Brian-

Can you please provide a reference for the seperation of church and state in the constitution. As for the social justice portion of your statement not being conservative I wonder if you are familiar with JP2 writings on capitalism?

I’ll be surprised if Obama becomes the darling of the looney leftist minority and adds any more fuel to the emotionalized wedge issues of the purely partisan.  I don’t see him becoming a promoter of San Francisco values and I believe he’ll at least try to operate in a centrist mode without engaging in social or cultural warfare issues.

However, I also believed Bushleaguer would cut expenditures and balance the budget, save a few surplus budget bucks each year, pay down the national debt somewhat, and generate some enlightened unity in the country.

So … ???

I was taught by a very wise man that the word TRY should only be used when explaining failure, lack of accomplishment, poor performance, etc.

Think about how powerful the famous Nike slogan would be if it read, “Just try it!”  Sounds more like an ad for a condumn made of seran wrap.

Remember the Bill Clinton interview when he was pressed about his failure to take out Bin Ladin.  “Well at least I tried.”  Big f…ing deal.  He FAILED.

So TK Barry will TRY to govern from the center, but then labor unions, Bush haters, anti-war loons, etc. will in the end be why his TRY will not be his DID.

It will be interesting, these next two years, to see how Obama will govern. If he governs too far to the left, he may face the same voter backlash that Clinton experienced in the ‘94 mid-term elections.

Old Navy Vet, Post 12;

As far as I’m concerned, there’s certainly nothing wrong with labor unions or people who prefer peace to warfare.  If you’re ideologically-opposed to protecting the working man and in favor of military might instead of effective diplomacy and being right, that’s entirely your prerogative.

I didn’t vote for Clinton, but he certainly had more positive accomplishments in office than does the current administration – and if “getting Bin Laden” is your only measure – the current president didn’t get Bin Laden over the last eight years, either.

And, apparently, sufficient numbers of Americans felt differently from you about Mr. Obama to get him elected.

And, of course “I believe he’ll at least try” was MY phraseology – - not Obama’s – - so don’t “blame” the word “try” on him.

And, I don’t know about the “hate” part (I think he’s the worst president in American history), but apparently, according to public opinion surveys, only 21% of Americans actually “approve” of Bush, so, again, if you want to call the 79% who disapprove of him “haters”, I guess that’s also up to you.

From my perspective, I prefer a “wait and see” attitude before making any judgments about what the man will accomplish or not.  And, of course, the preferences and will of Congress havew a LOT to do with what a president can or cannot actually “do”.

And, finally, if a president is successful, we’re ALL successful; if a president fails, we ALL fail – - so – - it seems to me that it only makes sense to wish a new president well, doesn’t it?

Amor patriae.

TK
I will let history (not revisionists, not bloggers, not liberals, but true historians) be the judge of the Bush administration.

As for labor unions, take a long look at the auto industry.  Is it more successful in Detroit or Alabama?  For the most part Unions are like trial lawyers and corrupt politicians.  They are far more invested in their own power than protecting workers.  I spent most of my professional life as a white collar manager.  My life has been one of get off my ass, work hard, produce or get fired.  That is simply the way it should be.

I and all thinking people prefer peace over warfare.  I will not however negotiate with anyone who invades my space with the intent to do harm to my family or friends.  I will go to war with them and I will kill them.  I want a President who will do the same for my country.  True peace comes through strength.  Strength of military, strength of character, and strength of resolve.  I wonder if the USA would have survived Hitler and WWII if the anti war left would have existed then as it does now?  Remember Germany and Italy did not attack the USA, yet Roosevelt sent us to war with them.  Was he wrong or did he do what had to be done?

Enough already, back to real life.

Old Navy Vet, Post 15;

Historically, labor unions went a long way towards leveling the playing field (between “management” and “labor”) for factory workers and, in the early 20th century especially, unionism inspired an ongoing legislative movement to improve wages, benefits and working conditions for all blue-collar workers, especially in those industries where treatment of labor was originally and often abusive.

I’ve owned small businesses of one kind or another for 47 years (at least half of them being dependent on the good work of blue-collar laborers) – yet, personally, I have always believed unionism represented a significant and necessary pursuit of inherent civil rights, i.e., the pursuit of civil rights for workers was not unlike the pursuit of the civil rights for women, civil rights for former slaves and African-Americans, civil rights for native Americans, etc.

Further, in my case, I have always believed the foundation of the American economy is the American worker – NOT the American investment banker – and that a successful business required a successful, effective and symbiotic win-win PARTNERSHIP between workers and management.  And, of course, I have always believed in the concept of a fair and full living wage!

So, I heartily disagree with you on unionism – in spite of the fact that I’ve also been a white-collared, PhD-educated “manager” all of my working life – and since I’ve pretty much always been successfully self-employed – I guess I’ve apparently gotten off my ass, worked hard and produced along the way, too!

Further, I don’t share your militarism – nor the similar militarism of Barry Goldwater back in 1964 – which is what kept me from voting for him – in spite of the fact that I did support pretty much all of the rest of his political philosophy.

An aside:  At one time, I was well-acquainted with a very famous American prize-fighter, a long-time champion.  He had intelligence; he had strength; he had resolve; he had character; and he had commitment – BUT – he surely didn’t need to go around proving how tough he was by punching out everyone who had occasion, justifiable or not, to disagree with him!  He was the epitome of “Walk Softy But Carry A Big Stick”.  I much prefer that concept to someone prancing around spouting “I will kill them”.  “TRUE” strength does NOT have to constantly be proven in battle!  (Check out the “Cold War”!)

Regarding your comments about Hitler and WWII: if you read a history of the American people during the period between WWI and WWII, you’ll find that the country at the time was very, VERY much “anti-war”, isolationist, “Stay out of it”-minded!  Even Churchill’s memoirs are filled with his endless questioning of whether or not America would ever enter the war on the side of the European Allies. 

Prior to December, 1941, the vast majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with Hitler and Mussolini.  So, apparently, “the anti-war left” back then was bigger (percentage-wise) than it ever has been since!  And there are dozens and dozens of speculative histories holding that Roosevelt had a very good idea that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and when it was coming – and that he decided he could use such an event to motivate and energize the American people to support his desire to enter the war. (???)

And, note that Roosevelt DID NOT seek a congressional declaration of war against Germany and Italy until 3-4 days AFTER the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the initial declaration of war against Japan.  WE were NOT actively involved in the European war to any great extent before Pearl Harbor.

The point is, the vast majority of people in this country were “anti-war” up until Pearl Harbor.  And it was NOT a DEM or GOP or a left or a right or a liberal or a conservative issue. 

But, then, in spite of the almost complete resistance of our populace to war at that time, and even though right-wingers often refer to him as the “leftist” and “socialist”, FDR and all those “anti-war leftists” in the country apparently got together somehow and, with congressional approval, actually went to war against Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese.  The “leftist/socialist” president and the “anti-war leftist” majority of the country – going to war!?!?!

I think the reality is a little different than your view of it.

Martin,

Did you miss the supreme court ruling Roe vs. Wade.  In essence it made the ‘unborn’ non-persons.  By doing that, abortionists (and O is one of them) made it so that abortion is legal.  The American people had a chance to vote on Nov. 4 for a man who would have stood up for the unborn and they blew it.

Americans are going to get exactly the government they deserve.  The unfortunate thing is that a lot of us who didn’t vote for o are going to suffer as well.

TK:  One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments was the bombing of an aspirin factory.  During his 8 years in office, there were 8 bombings against US interests, culminating in 9-11 (or have you forgotten like so many Americans?).  At least Bush kept us safe.  Will o be able to say the same?  Biden has already said that there will be a terrorist attack.  Maybe it will happen on January 20, 2009, the day the liberals are just waiting for.  It couldn’t happen on a more appropriate day. 

Brian R Sullivan:

The Constitution does NOT endorse the separation of church and state.  What it says is that congress shall pass no law regarding the endorsement of one religion over another, nor prohibit the free exercise of one religion over another or words to that effect.  Those who say the Constitution does are taking a remark of Thomas Jefferson out of context in order to make their point.

Ellen Sandfer, Post 17;

What does Clinton have to do with anything?  He came to office 16 years ago and left 8 years ago. (Note: I did not vote for Clinton and haven’t mentioned him here at all.)

And Bushleaguer has done nothing but bankrupt this country and bring ideological partisanship and personal incompetency to new heights!  He’s the worst president of my lifetime and he sure didn’t “save” anybody from anything!  In fact, we’re ALL going to be “paying” for Bush, big time, for a long time to come!

Further, and I’m not defending abortion here, but Roe vs. Wade goes back 35 years – and – in each of those years, public opinion surveying has determined support of that decision has never been less than 64% of all adult Americans.  (Even Barry Goldwater supported Roe vs. Wade as the Supreme Court decided it.)  As I said, I am not defending abortion – but I do believe in and support the concept of the will of the majority in all cases – and, from what I see, for the last 35 years, the majority of Americans has supported the decision.

And, regarding your comment on separation of church and state: the Constitution does prohibit the establishment of a religion by the government and does provide freedom of religion to the individual (as well as freedom FROM religion).  So, where’s the issue?  An individual may practice whatever religion he or she chooses (provided one does not engage in illegal acts in the pursuit thereof) – and the government will not engage in supporting or endorsing any religion.  Sounds like separation of church and state to me.

And, do you remember 1960?  All the non-Catholic religionists were agitating (some extremely vehemently AND violently) against the election of “that Papist”, John F. Kennedy – because, if he was elected, it was obvious to ALL of them that the Pope and the Vatican would undoubtedly “rule America”!  The same people who argue to put religion INTO government today argued to KEEP IT OUT back in 1960!  Now, isn’t that a self-serving (if not plainly discriminatory) double-standard?  Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

And, keep in mind, a lot of those (actually, a majority) who didn’t vote for W in 2000 and 2004 had “to suffer as well” over the last eight years in the same way you feel you must “suffer” under Obama!

Forget the ideology!

Amor patriae.