Congressman Chris Smith on Forced Abortions

"Let's not forget that at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime against humanity today and there is our Vice President saying that he fully understands the one child per couple policy that has made brothers and sisters illegal in China."

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Michael Sean Winters and National Catholic Reporter Celebrate Bin Laden's Death

Of all the responses in the Catholic blogosphere to Osama bin Laden's death, few have matched the sort of jingoistic and nationalistic bravado that we've seen in the secular media and on the streets of New York City and Washington, D.C. The overwhelming majority of Catholic bloggers have been quite circumspect and reflective upon the killing of America's public enemy #1, soberly asking themselves what is the appropriate Christian response to the sudden, violent death of the mastermind of 9/11.

The most prominent exception to this general rule - the one high-profile Catholic blogger who openly relished (indeed, encouraged celebrating) bin Laden's demise - came from what might seem like a surprising source. The National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for the Catholic left, routinely excoriates the Catholic blogosphere for what it sees as pro-Republican, militaristic, and jingoistic nationalism. And yet, it was the Reporter's most high-profile blogger, Michael Sean Winters, who used his blog, the so-called "Distinctly Catholic", to do a tap dance on the freshly killed body of bin Laden:

... I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.

I think many Catholic bloggers, upon hearing the news, struggled with feeling happy over the news of bin Laden's death. But, in blogging about it at least, few gave such full-throated approval to the notion of celebrating the macabre as did Michael Sean Winters.

There is much that is disturbing about Winters' piece, but the part that troubled me most was his acknowledging that giving into vengeful thoughts is sinful, but nevertheless stating explicitly that he would go ahead and engage in (and, indeed, celebrate) such thoughts anyway, and then afterward take advantage of the sacrament of confession.

Think about that for a moment. Serious sin. Willfully engaged in. But it doesn't matter because he'll just go to confession later and seek forgiveness for a sin for which he doesn't appear to be the least bit sorry. Presumption. What's more, Winters is presuming upon the Divine Mercy and grace of God for his own sins, while in the very next breath declaring that another of God's children "do[es] not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy" (on Divine Mercy Sunday, no less, which is when Winters wrote this).

Now, earlier in this post, I noted that this piece came from "what might seem like a surprising source". It might seem suprising, that is, unless you know anything about the writing of one Michael Sean Winters. On any topic on which there is a disagreement between Catholics on on a matter of interest to the Church, just find out what the official Democrat Party position is, or which view is more advantageous to the Democrats were it to prevail, and that will pretty much tell you where Michael Sean Winters stands. (You've heard of "Republicath" bloggers who allegedly substitute the Republican platform for Catholic theology and label it as the latter? Well, Michael Sean Winters is the Democath blogger par excellence.) Here, the death of Osama bin Laden is being celebrated by the Obama Administration and the Democrats because it happened on their watch instead of George W. Bush's, so Winters happily joins in.

Suffice it to say, however, had this happened with Bush in the White House, and had the streets filled with people chanting "U.S.A" and other slogans and singing the National Anthem, and had some blogger on the right side of the Catholic blogosphere written a piece celebrating not only the death of bin Laden but the over-exuberant reaction thereto, I feel fairly confident in believing Michael Sean Winters would be singing a different tune. But, as fate would have it, this happened on his guy's watch, so bravado, jingoism, nationalism, and celebrating the death of the enemy is all the rage.

Ironically, it's the folks at The American Catholic, who Winters has at various times criticized as "yahoos" and as being "kookie" (I guess that's like being "kooky"), and who one prominent left-leaning blogger has described as being guilty of "blood lust" and pushing a "theology of violence", and who other left-leaning Catholics have parodied as "fascists", who had the definitive post on the appropriate Catholic reaction to bin Laden's death. Contrast Michael Sean Winters paean to veangence to another Michael's (Michael Denton) thoughtful and charitable post, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

Vatican Spokesman on Killing of Osama bin Laden

From Catholic News Service:

... Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.

See also Michael Denton's well-written piece at The American Catholic, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

My Comments
Hopefully, the reaction to the news of bin Laden's death will become more reflective and the overexuberant reaction we've witnessed so far will be tempered. But at the same time, I'd like to see those who are condemning the jubilation (and I do not count the Vatican spokesman or Michael among them) show a bit more understanding and compassion for why people are reacting the way they are.

Yes, more people should put into practice the Church’s teachings on mercy and forgiveness and embrace the Church’s teachings on social justice. I am convinced, however, that one reason more do not do so is because the pious “tsk-tsking” and “tut-tutting” of the more vocal proponents of social justice, which seems to never account for the natural feelings of those impacted by such crimes, is so offputting.


UPDATE
What I've written above is especially apt in discussing the overjubilant celebrations we've seen among college-age students. I ask the harshest critics to put themselves in their shoes for a moment. Cut 'em some slack. They have grown up with bin Laden being the greatest menace the world faced (aside from George W. Bush). They've grown up with terror alerts, pat-down frisks in airports, and the horror of being children and watching the ultimate in man's inhumanity to man as those buildings came crashing down, turning living, breathing humanity into mere dust particles.

Think back to how we felt when the menace of our childhood ended as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and imagine how these young people feel. It's a catharsis for them to be able to experience SOME emotion over this monster other than the fear, grief, anger, and disappointment they've experienced for the last 10 years.

Knights of Columbus Mourns Death of Judge John Roll in Arizona Shooting

From LifeNews.com:

The Knights of Columbus, a prominent Catholic group known for its pro-life work, is today mourning the death of one of the victims of the Arizona shooting Saturday.

In addition to the injury of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Judge John Roll, who was nominated by former President George Bush, was killed along with five other people.

Roll, who was the chief judge for the District of Arizona, was a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus, and was a charter member of a Knights council in his hometown.

Carl Anderson, the head of the pro-life Catholic fraternal order, today expressed “profound sadness” at the death of Roll and the others.He asked the 1.8 million members of the Knights of Columbus and their families to pray for the recovery of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 other people who were seriously injured in the attack.

[Read the whole thing]

What if Roman Polanski Were a Catholic Priest?

Al Kresta notes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in the left's (and that includes the media) attitudes toward two events involving sexual misconduct with children - the priest sex-abuse scandal and Roman Polanski's drugging and then forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old girl:

Here’s a maxim for Left-wing luvvies: let’s treat the Pope like a rapist, and treat a rapist like the Pope.

[...]

But in the eyes of Lefty luvvies from Hollywood to Hampstead, the only real difference between the Pope and Polanski is that the latter is an artist. That, you see, erases a multitude of sins – yes, even the rape of a 13-year-old girl. The same people who are viciously denouncing Benedict even though he has not been convicted of any crime defend Polanski despite his conviction because he’s “one of us”. In their eyes, directing The Pianist and Rosemary’s Baby has somehow cleansed the stain of shame from this repulsive little man.

Here is the bad news: the luvvies have won. Their man has been let off – to cries of relief from the arty set, the Swiss authorities have refused the America its request for extradition. The Pope, meanwhile, continues to be publicly reviled by bohemians who think he should be arrested for crimes he neither committed nor concealed. And they dare attack the Church for hypocrisy!

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Movie Producer Weinstein: "Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass"

"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime"

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

UVA Men's Lacrosse Player Charged With 1st Degree Murder in Death of UVA Women's Lacrosse Player [UPDATED]

What the heck is going on at my alma mater?!?

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- A University of Virginia men's lacrosse player has been charged with first-degree murder in the death of a women's lacrosse player at the school.

Charlottesville police said in a news release that 22-year-old George Huguely of Chevy Chase, Md., is charged in the death of 22-year-old Yeardley Love of Cockeysville, Md.

Both were fourth-year students.

"Although we know nothing other than what appears in the Charlottesville Police Department's more recent statement, this death moves us to deep anguish for the loss of a student of uncommon talent and promise," a statement released by The University of Virginia says, "and we express the University's and our own sympathy for Yeardley's family, teammates, and friends."

Police were called to an off-campus apartment around 2:15 a.m. Monday about a possible alcohol overdose. Officials have not determined the cause of death but say there were signs of physical trauma.

Witnesses told police Huguely and Love were in a relationship.

"That she appears now to have been murdered by another student compounds this sense of loss by suggesting that Yeardley died without comfort or consolation from those closest to her," the school's statement says.

Huguely is being held in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

Bringing back unpleasant memories of something that happened a few years ago at my other alma mater.


UPDATE
Message from President Casteen Regarding the Death of a U.Va. Student Today

"That Morning in Late April ... Oklahoma '95"

Are Calls for Collective Penance for the Sex Abuse Scandal an Exercise in Blame Shifting?

Writing at National Catholic Register, Mark Shea provides an answer:

... The notion of doing penance for others is a tricky one, particularly when those others are fellow Catholics who have wronged us by their sin and especially when those others are, in fact, the very priests who have been entrusted with the Tradition that bids us to do penance for others. It’s incredibly easy for the guilty parties to use such things as penance as a sort of tool for dissolving their actual guilt for actual sins in a sort of collective pool of “Well, we’re all sinners” or even “Hey! You are to blame for letting me sin!” or some other blame-shifting nonsense. One of the common themes to emerge from the scandal has been that monsters like Fr. Maciel would indeed abuse their victims and then lay the guilt for the abuse on the victim. And depending on how psychologically strong the victim was, that burden of guilt would often be accepted. It is not the least of that man’s crimes and may God have mercy on his soul for it.

So it’s not too surprising that calls for Catholics to do penance for these sins often get interpreted as blame-shifting. However, I would submit that this is not, properly understood, how we who bear no personal responsibility for the Scandal should understand the call to penance. Penance does not mean “take the fall and bear the blame so that guilty people can skate or dissolve their sense of responsibility for the crimes in the Collective”. Penance is, in the Christian tradition, our participation in the innocent suffering of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Our tradition tells us that Christ who knew no sin, became sin for our sake so that we might become the righteousness of God. He bore the sins of the world, but he did not commit the sins of the world. He was blameless, and opened not his mouth, says Isaiah. Similarly, in Christ, Paul declares that he fills up in his flesh what is lacking with respect to the suffering of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church (Colossians 1:24). That doesn’t mean “Jesus didn’t do enough so I have to make up for his well-meaning but inadequate effort on the Cross.” Rather, it means that as Christians, we bear the cross with Jesus and offer our innocent sufferings in union with His for the good of others—including others who are sinners as guilty as hell...

[More]

(Hat tip: Darwin at The American Catholic)

Compassionate, Non-Violent Lefties Spread the Love

Gateway Pundit reports: "GOP Official & Boyfriend Savagely Beaten For Wearing Palin Pins – Including Broken Leg, Jaw, Concussion… Media Silent".

From Churchgoer to Church Burner

My hometown of Van, Texas, makes The New York Times ... and not for something particularly noteworthy:

Jason R. Bourque grew up in a house full of crosses.

In a hallway leading to the 19-year-old’s bedroom, there is a picture of him graduating with honors from Van High School, where he was a state champion in debate, along with his framed Eagle Scout badge. He built a picnic area for a local church as his final scouting project. That good deed came after he had gone on several summer missions for his church to build housing for the poor.

But law enforcement officials say something went awry over the last year in Mr. Bourque’s sense of good and evil. He and a childhood friend, Daniel G. McAllister, 21, now stand accused of breaking into 10 churches since Jan. 1, piling hymnals and furniture up around the pulpits and pianos and then setting the churches ablaze, according to search warrants and arrest affidavits.

“This was not his character — he was raised Christian,” his mother, Kimberly Bourque, said.

On the streets of the small towns around Tyler, where the two young men grew up and lived, people are trying to fathom how boys who had been raised in religious families and, until recently, were regular churchgoers could end up accused of such a crime...

[More]

My Comments:
Of course, the Times blames it all on the young man's "strict Christian upbringing" against which he was rebelling. I'd be interested in knowing how the Times defines "strict". I doubt the young man was brought up any differently than I was.

Movie Producer Weinstein: "Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass"

Big-time Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein - whose production companies are noted for producing such virtuous gems as "Sex, Lies, and Videotape", "Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!" (no wonder he thinks rape is no big deal), "Madonna: Truth or Dare", and "Pulp Fiction" - is not only more politically "enlightened" than the rest of us, but he is just oh so morally superior to you and me:

... In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." ...

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Anally raping a 13-year-old girl against her will is a "so-called crime"? And he's "not convinced that public opinion is running against" such criminal behavior? What a big, fat jerk! Yeah, only the "best" values come out of Hollyweird.

And it's not just the LA Times that is taking note of the moral and cultural divide between Hollywood and normal Americans. In The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson - who last week harshly criticized the Polanski apologists for defending Polanki's "grotesque" actions toward a 13-year-old girl - reprises his anti-Polanski role today by asking whether "conservative culture warriors who portray Hollywood as a cesspool of moral bankruptcy have been right all along". He answers, "Not really", but reading the entire piece it is difficult not to conclude that Robinson has grudgingly conceded otherwise.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime"

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime"

Actor Rod Steiger's ironic response (at least it's ironic in light of current events) in 1999 to film director Elia Kazan (89 years old at the time) being awarded an Honorary Oscar for Lifetime Achievement for such works as "On the Waterfront".

Paradoxically, Kazan's alleged "crime" was not a crime at all. He had informed on Hollywood commies who had colluded with the Soviet Union.

Drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl and fleeing the country to avoid the justice system, however, IS a crime, albeit one that Hollywood types tend not to get too worked up over and, in fact, sign petitions to excuse. May all these Hollywood pervert-apologist jerks see that dirtbag Roman Polanski do hard time rotting in a California prison.


UPDATE
Ed Morrissey has more on this topic in "Hollywood’s statute of limitations":

In order to completely understand the perverse nature of Hollywood’s almost-total support for director Roman Polanski in his effort to fight extradition and avoid the consequences of his conviction for statutory rape 32 years ago, recall their attitude towards another seminal director ten years ago. When the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced that they would give a lifetime achievement Oscar to Elia Kazan, many in Hollywood erupted in anger and protest. After all, Kazan had committed the unpardonable sin of naming names of Communists in Hollywood to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: Joe Carter at First Thoughts)

At Slate, Kate Harding writes the definitive rebuttal to all the Roman Polanski apologists:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

[...]

Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

[Read the whole thing]

UPDATE
Additional commentary that highlights the blatant hypocrisy at play here.

HotAir asks just how liberal do you have to be in order to be excused for raping a 13-year-old:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused for shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently the film’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

(emphasis added)

And Creative Minority Report asks us to "Imagine He Were a Priest":

Just for a moment I want you to imagine that Roman Polanski was a priest. Frightening, yes? But for the sake of my point imagine that he's a priest who drugged and raped a thirteen year old.

Imagine he's a priest who fled to France so as to avoid punishment for his crime. Imagine that he flaunted his freedom in America's face for decades.

Now imagine that Roman Polanski as a priest was apprehended by the police after all those years. Now, imagine what the media would be saying...

[More]

And writing at Politics Daily, David Gibson has similar thoughts:

... There is the obvious parallel to the cases in the Catholic Church, which have rightly scandalized the public and the media. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys have been dogged in pursuing these cases -- whether out of concern for their careers or for justice -- and the outrage was so widespread that the State of California created a one-year window in 2003 during which the statute of limitations on abuse crimes by Catholic priests (and others) was lifted. That meant the victims of men who were often long dead could finally get their day in court, or find some sense of justice and closure -- and for cases that were no more egregious than Polanski's abuse of Geimer. Polanski is alive, at least.

Comparisons are by their nature invidious. But what if Roman Polanksi were wearing a Roman collar? Would "Monsignor Polanksi" receive the same considerations? As Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit, writes at the Post's "On Faith" site, "Imagine if the Knights of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal." And rightly so, as Reese says. But Polanski gets an Oscar in absentia in 2003 and earns sympathy because he can't receive it in person...

UPDATE #2
I always did like singer-songwriter Jewel. This just confirms me in my high regard for her.


UPDATE #3 (30 September)
More from HotAir on the "how liberal do you have to be to get a get of jail free card" question:

... Polanski’s defenders cite his brilliance as an Important Director of Important Films as a reason it’s not only wrong, but outrageous, to punish him for his past crimes. This is similar to the arguments made in favor of releasing convicted cop-killer Mumia abu Jamal from prison, a point of view enthusiastically held by at least one high-ranking member of the Obama Administration: that fabled Rohrschach inkblot of liberal stupidity, Van Jones. Mumia’s delicate writing hand is much more important than the one he used to shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner in the back.

The Left also issues Get Out of Jail Free cards to people other than artists. The Polanski defense is a nostalgic karaoke rendition of the 1998 anthem “Perjury About Sex Is Not A Crime,” sung on Bill Clinton’s behalf. Perjury, infidelity, and what the antique feminist movement used to call “sexual harassment” were small prices to pay for Clinton’s inspirational leadership.

You can’t say the Left is entirely soft on crime, however. There are some scofflaws they’ll never stop trying to put behind bars. CIA agents who kept America safe from terrorists, for example. None of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay was innocent, or thirteen years old, and none of them were drugged, raped, and sodomized, but the Obama Administration is keen on prosecuting the people who interrogated them. If Roman Polanski had covered his victim’s face with a wet towel, maybe his defense would be a bit less energetic.

Another individual the Left wants brought to justice is Karl Rove, for the crime of being Karl Rove. The other charges against him range from being nebulous to absurd, but rest assured, it would be a great day for America if we could frog-march that villain into the vacant cell left behind by a liberated Mumia abu Jamal. Best of all would be the trial and imprisonment of George W. Bush, a fantasy the Left holds with the intensity of a small child shivering through a sleepless Christmas Eve. Bush actually did the stuff Clinton just talked about - liberating the people of Iraq from monstrous tyranny, fighting AIDS in Africa - but it earns him no slack from liberal vigilantes. He did more for women’s rights than anyone alive today - you can ask the women of Afghanistan about it, now that their faces aren’t wrapped in upholstery - but he didn’t do anything really important, like make a movie about the sexual oppression of suburban America.

[...]

George Bush’s first offense was denying America the brilliant, socially aware, technocratic leadership of Al Gore. The statue of limitations will never run out on something like that. Meanwhile, forcing a beloved Hollywood director to end his life in the slammer for a little error in judgment, like rape, would be unthinkably crass… as long as his Party credentials are in order. That is why the same people who turned their backs on Elia Kazan weep for Roman Polanski today, and will weep again at his career retrospective, on some future Oscar night. The Party may have changed its name, and adjusted its methods, but it still remembers what Kazan did to it, and his sentence extends far beyond the end of his life.

I'll never forget that bunch of leftist communist sympathizers in Hollywood - lefties like Nick Nolte and Ed Harris - sitting on their hands when Elia Kazan was awarded an Oscar for lifetime achievement. And when it comes to irony, it's hard to beat this quote from the late Rod Steiger regarding Kazan's Oscar award:

"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime,'' says Rod Steiger, star of "On the Waterfront."

Funny thing is, Kazan's informing on a bunch of commies wasn't a crime. Drugging and raping a little girl, however, is.

May all the Hollywood lefties and pervert apologists see Polanski do hard time in a California prison.

Perhaps I'm a "Boor" for Pointing This Out, But This Makes Bush's Disgusting "Joke" at the Expense of Karla Faye Tucker Seem Tame by Comparison

Details here and here.

And, just so you know, this story is not something manufactured by a detractor bent on speaking ill of the dead, but was related by a FRIEND of the late Senator - former editor of Newsweek and New York Times Magazine and author of the book Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died, Ed Klein.


UPDATED



UPDATE #2
What's not to laugh at? The horrifying details.

New York Archbishop: Mistake to Release Lockerbie Bomber

Archbishop Dolan reveals that he is a dualist Americanist Calvinist with a "dodgy theology" that doesn't encompass the fullness of Christ's compassion as it is embraced by our European betters:

Echoing sentiments expressed by other local religious leaders, Archbishop Timothy Dolan called the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi “a sad and perplexing mistake.” The terrorist, who received a hero’s welcome in his native Libya, had been released because he is suffering from terminal cancer.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

NYC clergy condemns Scotland freeing bomber (AP)

(emphasis added)

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

Brian Saint-Paul recounts the disturbing details at Inside Catholic.

Steal a Fetus; Find a Baby

A must read on MSM confusion/hypocrisy.

"If Obama’s lost Cambridge, [Massachusetts,] ... he’s lost America!" [UPDATED]

Read in the comments to this Ed Morrissey post.


UPDATE
The Cranky Conservative offers his take on "Our stupid president".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Meet the Police Officer the President Accused (on National TV) of Being a "Stupid" Racist [UPDATED]

Meet the Police Officer the President Accused (on National TV) of Being a "Stupid" Racist [UPDATED]

Police Seargent James Crowley:

... But people who know Crowley were skeptical or outright dismissive of allegations of racism. A prominent defense lawyer, a neighbor of Crowley’s, his union, and fellow officers described him yesterday as a respected, and respectful, officer who performs his job well and has led his colleagues in diversity training.

“He’s evenhanded and, in the cases I’ve had with him, he’s been very much in control and very professional,’’ said Joseph W. Monahan III, a criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge and former Middlesex County prosecutor. Monahan has represented several defendants arrested by Crowley for domestic assaults and for drunken driving.

Crowley himself, speaking to the Globe yesterday and again last night in Natick, said he will not apologize and asserted, “I am not a racist.’’

Crowley’s police union issued a statement saying it had reviewed the arrest of Gates and expressed “full and unqualified support’’ for his actions.

“Sergeant Crowley is a highly respected veteran supervisor with a distinguished record in the Cambridge Police Department,’’ said the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. “His actions at the scene of this matter were consistent with his training, with the informed policies and practices of the Department, and with applicable legal standards.’’

[More]

But it wasn't just cops Obama attacked in his press conference last night. He also accused pediatricians of being motivated by greed to perform unnecessary tonsilectomies on kids:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Nice. Glad to see our President "bringing us together".


UPDATE
Ed Morrissey has more on ths story.

Methinks this misstep is going to cost dear leader a few popularity points. The voters of America don't recall seeing Al Sharpton's name on the ballot when they voted last November.


UPDATE #2
So, let me see if I have this straight: it took Obama 2 months to decide what kind of dog to get for his kids; he's been in D.C. for 6 months and still can't decide which church to attend; but he thinks we should pass a health care bill that will nationalize health insurance for the entire country without the citizens having any information about what it means for us (including whether abortion will be federally funded) after a mere 2 weeks of "debate"; and, on the basis of his admittedly "not having all the facts", he feels free to impugn - on national TV - the cops who arrested Prof. Gates as "stupid" racists.

I suppose we should take comfort in the fact that he's taking time to think through the important things.

Seeking Justice: "Capital Punishment Divides Republican AG Candidates in Virginia"

Commonwealth of Virginia prosecutor Tom McKenna has an interesting post on this year's Republican race for Attorney General of Virginia, which pits two social conservatives - one favoring the death penalty and the other a Catholic who opposes it - facing off against each other:

... What was mildly surprising is not that the left opposed the bill [which would expand the death penalty to include non-triggermen, such as John Allen Muhammed, who avoided capital punishment because his accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo was the actual triggerman] but that a Catholic, homeschooling, social conservative, Ken Cuccinelli, who is running for state Attorney General, argued that "we're killing enough people in Virginia," ...

***
Sadly, Mr. Cuccinelli, who should garner alot of support from social conservatives, will lose his bid for the Republican nomination for AG, in part because of his opposition to capital punishment. The "moderates" of Northern Virginia (his home) won't reward him for it because on all other social issues he's solidly pro-life-- and horror of horrors, a homeschooler (you know, one of those). And the downstate Repubs will wonder why we should have an AG who opposes capital punishment when one of the AG's most important responsibilities is to defend capital convictions vigorously in the state and federal appellate courts.

By default then, the nomination will fall to John Brownlee, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, a social conservative, and someone who believes in the appropriate use of capital punishment.

I suspect Mr. Cuccinelli has been hoodwinked by the American Catholic Bishops and other Catholic liberals into believing that he cannot support capital punishment and remain a loyal Catholic, a lie debunked by yours truly here and elsewhere on this blog.

My Comments:
I know that many readers of this blog will take issue with my friend Tom's views on capital punishment. Indeed, I have come to oppose the death penalty, myself, NOT because I think it inherently wrong or unjust - I don't, but because, as a prudential matter, opposing the death penalty makes arguing on behalf of a culture of life much easier. I got sick of getting bogged down in arguing the REAL distinctions that exist between abortion and capital punishment, and decided that, along with the Pope and his Bishops, it was preferable to oppose capital punishment.

That said, I'd like to make 2 observations about Tom's post:

(1) If you're going to have a death penalty, surely Tom is absolutely correct in pointing out that it makes no sense to allow a non-triggerman like John Allen Muhammed to avoid it by virtue of the fact that Lee Boyd Malvo was the guy doing all the shooting; and

(2) Let's see if all those self-proclaimed "consistent ethic of life"/"seamless garment" Catholics who seem to be able to come up with a myriad of reasons to support pro-abort Democrats can put aside their tribal loyalties and bring themselves to support an anti-abortion and anti-capital-punishment Catholic Republican. [Sound of crickets chirping]