Fr. Corapi on the Obama/Notre Dame Scandal

Democrats Stop Pretending and Words Re-Gain Their Meaning

Here's the latest from R.C.'s Blogger Christian Stockel.....

Thoughts from the Right Side
May 6, 2009

The first 100 days of the Obama Administration has come and gone. While the mainstream media has spent their time shouting accolades for Obama's looks, his coolness, his dog, and his “swagga” (yes CNN hit a new low there), I have my own list of “achievements” upon which I could provide criticism – some of which I have discussed here on ReaganConservatives.us. However, I have to admit that President Obama has been very successful in packaging a radical, leftist agenda in a moderate veneer. Obama's skill at sounding like a moderate and the Democrat's uncharacteristic discipline to stay on message have handed Republicans a string of political defeats. Fortunately, there appears to be an unlikely trend developing that provides Congressional Republicans an opportunity to seize the initiative in the public debate over key issues. It is becoming clear that Congress is even more liberal than President Obama and willing to act on their pent up desires to implement what they consider to be the “Great Society Part II”. Some members are no longer content to rely on Obama's soft euphemisms like healthcare reform, energy independence, and education investment to sell policy. They are boldly declaring their intentions without fear of being called socialist or liberal – they are seizing on the political environment as an opportunity to implement policies and programs that have been - previously - impossible to achieve politically. This change in strategy offers conservatives a rare opportunity.

One example of this can be seen in the discussions on health care reform. To date, Obama's objectives have been described in broad and comfortable terms and has managed to explain a $680 billion budget line item for healthcare as a down payment. Obama's stated objective is to lower cost and increase access (the difficulty of doing both will requires a separate discussion) yet he fails to explain that accomplishing this will require reduced levels of care spread ever more thinly among the people. During these discussions, President Obama has been careful to not utter the words single payer or National Health Service. Well it appears that some on the Democrat bench are tiring of that restriction and are ready to lay bare their plans. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has publicly, and on camera, stated that the goal of “healthcare reform” is to bankrupt private insurance and implement a single payer plan (Click on the Link to watch the video). She states her objectives boldly:

“I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Granted, this is only one statement from one Congressional representative from Illinois. However, it is one of many examples illustrating a trend away from President Obama's strategy of using moderate and obtuse language to steer clear of controversy. With absolute control over the White House, Congress, and favorable polls, Congressional Democrats are losing the fear of these labels and are more open about their objectives. They are going for “the gusto”. While Representative Schakowsky's comments are grating to conservative sensibilities, we do have to see this as a positive trend that can clarify the public debate on key issues and restore the meaning and value to the words used in such a debate. Up to this point, conservatives and the Republicans have been rather ineffective to counter President Obama's lethal ability to look and sound moderate while implementing radical policies. Since the cost of Obama's budget and stimulus bill has not impacted American taxpayers, his personal poll numbers have stayed relatively high. A reasonable person can assume that as Obama's initiatives on healthcare (as well as energy and education) come into focus and the reality of their impact become clear, Obama's obtuse use of language will lose its effect on voters who are still under the impression that they elected a moderate Democrat as President. However, by the time this happens, the damage done to the country could be too much to overcome.

Republicans and conservatives should take advantage of the new clarity in language offered by the Democrats and contrast them with clear, bold, and Conservative approaches to healthcare, energy, the economy, and entitlements. Conservatives have a small opportunity to pull the curtain back and expose the charade that is this Administration and the current Democrat party. More importantly, we need to illustrate the ultimate impacts of these policies in ways that overcome the seductive power of offering people something for nothing. Once voters are provided with an understanding of what the Administration's proposals mean to their freedom, their property, and control over their lives, it will be easier to make an alternative argument and increase resistance towards government expansion and the populist arguments that have defined the Obama administration thus far. Clarity will reveal President Obama and Congressional Democrats as the same old liberals that has haunted Washington DC since the days of FDR.

President Obama and the Democrat's in Congress have achieved significant political gains through the clever use of language, obfuscation, and moderate terminology to package their policies and disguise their real objectives. Obama was successful in convincing a large segment of the voting population that he was a Reganesque moderate Democrat. His policy initiatives were couched in vague terms like healthcare reform (i.e., government healthcare), energy independence (i.e., ban on domestic drilling, nuclear power, and a push to buy Dutch windmills), and education investment (federalizing K-12 education and the elimination of private schools). Obama has been able to convince the American people that he is not interested in running corporations. Meanwhile he fires the CEO of General Motors and hands over American industrial icons over to the Treasury and labor unions. His skill at oratory in general and the ability to sell the American people one thing while doing another in particular is a core pillar of Obama's political strength. It seems the Democrats are feeling confident about the political environment to abandon his strategy and to go “naked” with their plans. This is an opening that must be exploited if Republicans are to begin their long journey back to political relevance.

History has shown that liberals succeed when they disguise their policies in moderate and dishonest language. Conservatives thrive when they use clear, concise, and bold language. Recently, Republicans have tried to use the same strategy as the Democrats in an effort to seem more moderate resulting in a muddled message. It is time to change the playing field back to our advantage. I just hope there are still members in the Republican party with the intellect and the backbone to do so.

Audaces fortuna iuvat

Limbaugh, Ryan, and "33 Minutes" Highlight Heritage Foundation's President's Club Events in Washington

Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending my 11th Heritage Foundation President's Club Meeting at the Ronald Reagan Building (where else?) in Washington. Here are some of the highlights from yesterday's events and my perspectives:

• Attended the Young President's Club (YPC) luncheon with about 200 YPC members in attendance, about double the total who showed up to the November 2008 luncheon. Heritage announced that it is starting a new YPC membership drive to attract even greater numbers. The lunch talk featured Rob Bluey, Director of Online Strategy at Heritage, and Katherine Jean Lopez, National Review Online Editor. Kudos to John Fogarty, Director of Donor Relations, and his staff at Heritage for really trying to make a dent in the youth movement at Heritage. This has been an observed "gap" of Heritage's for many years and is an issue that I have written to Heritage senior executives about in the past. Glad to see they are finally going after the 18-25 demographic.


• After lunch and back in the main hall, Heritage Foundation President Dr. Ed Feulner discussed the current state of Conservatism in Washington and what activities are underway and planned at Heritage. He noted that Heritage has been working very hard over the past year to ramp up its Internet 2.0 efforts, which includes social networking on Facebook and Twitter. He was especially proud to announce that Heritage has added more than 110,000 new members to its rolls in the past year. In addition, the conference dinner would be attended by more than 1,000 members, the largest attended Heritage President's Club dinner ever. Of that total, about 250 YPC members would be attending.


• Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was most definitely the highlight of the early afternoon session as he provided his thoughts and ideas on Jack Kemp (whom he worked for...), the Obama Administration, and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, to name a few. He is extremely articulate, has a solid game plan for addressing the Obama spending and tax plans, and looks like the "real deal" as a future national player in the Conservative Party. He received a standing ovation from the packed ballroom following his no-notes, no-teleprompter speech.


• In the late afternoon, Heritage members were treated to a viewing of the 60-minute version of "33 Minutes -- Protecting America in the New Missile Age", a documentary highlighting the need for a missile defense system. This is one of the most intense and convincing political documentaries of all time and should be seen by all Americans. If you have not seen the film, please visit the site (link above) and watch the trailer on-line. Better yet, sign up to get information about local showings in your area of the country. Heritage is in negotiations with several networks regarding on-air viewings. Great job by Heritage on this important issue!


• Before the dinner reception, I had the opportunity to purchase a signed copy of Heritage's Senior Communications Fellow Rebecca Hagelin's new book, "30 Ways in 30 Day to Save Your Family". Rebecca has been an invaluable asset to Heritage over the past several years as its VP for Communications. Most recently, she served as Executive Producer of "33 Minutes" and now has written her second book on pro-family issues.


• The nightcap of the day's events, as always, is the dinner and keynote speech. Before a packed atrium at the Reagan Building, Dr. Feulner welcomed the group and made special mention of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' attendance, which drew a standing ovation from the audience. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh was running late for the event, but did get there after the dinner and dessert and hit a home run with an hour-long speech. The message of his speech is that the Conservative Party/Reagan Revolution is not dead and that the party needs to be a leader and teacher for Americans about First Principles and why much of the Obama plan will not work. He stressed that we cannot simply go out and ask Americans what they want and build a party platform around those responses. I will try and post portions of Rush's speech as they become available on the Net.

This year's Heritage Foundation President's Club Spring Meeting provided a tremendous boost to Conservatives who might be depressed over what has transpired in Washington since January 20. Although Conservatives are down right now, it was stressed throughout the day that the political tides can change VERY quickly in Washington depending on which way the wind (and economy...) are blowing. As always, Dr. Feulner and his entire staff at Heritage put on a fantastic show. I'm already looking forward to the November meeting!

Quarterback Jack

Jack Kemp, a longtime pro-life advocate, Vice-Presidential hopeful, and member of the Reagan Revolution, passed away over the weekend.

Kemp was originally known as a NFL football player and parlayed his success there into a career as a New York congressman. In Washington, Kemp maintain a consistent pro-life record and served a term as housing secretary for President George H.W. Bush.

Kemp became a hero for both pro-life and economic conservatives and a large segment of the pro-life movement hoped he would become the Republican presidential standard-bearer. Eventually, he made it onto the national ticket as Bob Dole's running-mate against pro-abortion President Bill Clinton in 1992. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Kemp "one of the nation's most distinguished public servants. Jack was a powerful voice in American politics for more than four decades." Kemp's name remains on the Kemp-Kasten amendment, an anti-coercion population control provision that prohibits funding of any groups that engage in or support forced abortion programs.

Here is the latest on Kemp's passing from "National Review":


A Democrat tells the story. Some time in the 1980s, there was a big GOP bash in D.C. The Democrat (a neighbor) watched the glittering elephants arrive, one of them being Jack Kemp, who, alone among the guests, stopped to chat up the cops on duty outside before going in. He did it with the manly bonhomie of an ex-jock and the ease of a born politician. Oh, no, thought the Democrat gloomily, another Republican with the common touch.

The other Republican the Kemp-watcher had in mind was Ronald Reagan, and the two men’s careers were intertwined. As a young congressman from the suburbs of Buffalo, Kemp was instrumental in converting Reagan to supply-side economics in the late 1970s. He backed Reagan in the 1980 election and backed his program to the hilt in the House — more strongly, sometimes, than Reagan himself. Many conservatives (including the editors of this magazine) saw him as Reagan’s heir.

Kemp was an autodidact. He focused on sports in his early life, becoming quarterback of the Buffalo Bills in the old AFL. Yet he nourished a nascent interest in politics by reading, reading, reading — WFB, Ayn Rand, economics, history. He honored ideas with the fervor of a young lover. His second passion, equal to his devotion to tax cuts, was his concern for black advancement. This was part conviction, part experience: As his friend Newt Gingrich liked to say, Jack had showered with people that most Republicans never meet. Kemp believed that the party of Lincoln had to regain its role as the champion of black America. The welfare state had not completed the civil-rights revolution; free-enterprise programs targeted at the inner city (such as enterprise zones) would do the trick instead.

Kemp never completed the touchdown drive of his career. When he sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, he was squeezed between Vice President George H.W. Bush and the Rev. Pat Robertson. Bush tapped Kemp to be his secretary of housing and urban development, where he served loyally even after Bush abandoned the tax-cutting gospel. When Bob Dole tapped Kemp to be his running mate in 1996, it came as a shock — Kemp already seemed emeritus — and indeed his campaign did the ticket no good and him little credit.

He had his flaws: a vein of pep-talk oratory that bled and bled; a tendency to pat himself on the back for his racial views (the wages of virtue can be as corrupting as the wages of sin); an indifference to the effects of 25 (and 35, and soon 45) years of unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal. But he was a bright and earnest man, and a great friend of NR — and did anyone else ever have his enthusiasm? Churchill said that being with FDR was like having a glass of champagne. Being with Jack Kemp was like chugging a can of Red Bull. How could someone so alive be gone? And yet it is so. R.I.P.


Kemp also wrote a letter to his 17 grandchildren following the election of Barack Obama:

A Letter to my Grandchildren
November 12, 2008

Dear Kemp grandchildren -- all 17 of you, spread out from the East Coast to the West Coast, and from Wheaton College in Illinois, to Wake Forest University in North Carolina:

My first thought last week upon learning that a 47-year-old African-American Democrat had won the presidency was, "Is this a great country or not?"

You may have expected your grandfather to be disappointed that his friend John McCain lost (and I was), but there's a difference between disappointment over a lost election and the historical perspective of a monumental event in the life of our nation.

Let me explain. First of all, the election was free, fair and transformational, in terms of our democracy and given the history of race relations in our nation.

What do I mean?

Just think, a little over 40 years ago, blacks in America had trouble even voting in our country, much less thinking about running for the highest office in the land.

A little over 40 years ago, in some parts of America, blacks couldn't eat, sleep or even get a drink of water using facilities available to everyone else in the public sphere.

We are celebrating, this year, the 40th anniversary of our Fair Housing Laws, which helped put an end to the blatant racism and prejudice against blacks in rental housing and homeownership opportunities.

As an old professional football quarterback, in my days there were no black coaches, no black quarterbacks, and certainly no blacks in the front offices of football and other professional sports. For the record, there were great black quarterbacks and coaches -- they just weren't given the opportunity to showcase their talent. And pro-football (and America) was the worse off for it.

I remember quarterbacking the old San Diego Chargers and playing for the AFL championship in Houston. My father sat on the 50-yard line, while my co-captain's father, who happened to be black, had to sit in a small, roped-off section of the end zone. Today, we can't imagine the NFL without the amazing contributions of blacks at every level of this great enterprise.

I could go on and on, but just imagine that in the face of all these indignities and deprivations, Dr. Martin Luther King could say 44 years ago, "I have an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in mankind." He described his vision for America, even as he and his people were being denied their God-given human rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

You see, real leadership is not just seeing the realities of what we are temporarily faced with, but seeing the possibilities and potential that can be realized by lifting up peoples' vision of what they can be.

When President-elect Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln on the night of his election, he was acknowledging the transcendent qualities of vision and leadership that are always present, but often overlooked and neglected by pettiness, partisanship and petulance. As president, I believe Barack Obama can help lift us out of a narrow view of America into the ultimate vision of an America where, if you're born to be a mezzo-soprano or a master carpenter, nothing stands in your way of realizing your God-given potential.

Both Obama in his Chicago speech, and McCain in his marvelous concession speech, rose to this historic occasion by celebrating the things that unite us irrespective of our political party, our race or our socio-economic background.

My advice for you all is to understand that unity for our nation doesn't require uniformity or unanimity; it does require putting the good of our people ahead of what's good for mere political or personal advantage.

The party of Lincoln, (i.e., the GOP), needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all. On the other hand, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and now Obama must put forth an agenda that understands that getting American growing again will require both Keynesian and classical incentive-oriented (supply-side) economic ideas. But there's time for political and economic advice in a later column (or two).

Let me end with an equally great historical irony of this election. Next year, as Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. I'm serving, along with former Rep. Bill Gray of Pennsylvania, on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Board to help raise funds for this historic occasion. President-elect Obama's honoring of Lincoln in many of his speeches reminds us of how vital it is to elevate these ideas and ideals to our nation's consciousness and inculcate his principles at a time of such great challenges and even greater opportunities.

In fact, we kick off the Lincoln bicentennial celebration on Wednesday, Nov. 19, in Gettysburg, Pa. The great filmmaker Ken Burns will speak at the Soldier's National Cemetery on the 145th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. On Thursday, Nov. 20, at Gettysburg College, we will have the first of 10 town hall forums, titled "Race, Freedom and Equality of Opportunity." I have the high honor of joining Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Professor Allen Guezlo and Norman Bristol-Colon on the panel, with Professor Charles Branham as the moderator.

President-elect Obama talks of Abraham Lincoln's view of our nation as an "unfinished work." Well, isn't that equally true of all of us? Therefore let all of us strive to help him be a successful president, so as to help make America an even greater nation.

Marriage and Civilization

From the latest edition of "National Review":

One of the great coups of the movement for same-sex marriage has been to plant the premise that it represents the inevitable future. This sense has inhibited even some who accept that marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman. They fear that throwing themselves into the cause of opposing it is futile — worse, that it will call down the judgment of history that they were bigots.

Yet a majority of Americans continue to oppose same-sex marriage. Support for it has certainly increased over the last 15 years, but the assumption that we can predict the future in which same-sex marriage is uncontroversial by drawing a straight line from this trend is unwarranted. Even among young voters, a majority of whom support same-sex marriage, that majority is hardly overwhelming.

Our guess is that if the federal judiciary does not intervene to impose same-sex marriage on the entire country, we are not going to see it triumph from coast to coast. Rather, we will for some time have a patchwork of laws. The division will not be so much between socially liberal and socially conservative states as between those states where voters can amend their state constitutions easily and those where they cannot. Thus same-sex marriage is likely to stay the law of the land in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut, and perhaps also in New Hampshire.

In two of those states, at least, democratic procedure is now being respected. Vermont has chosen to recognize same-sex marriages legislatively, and New Hampshire may do so. While free from the taint of lawlessness, these decisions seem to us unwise. Few social goods will come from recognizing same-sex couples as married. Some practical benefits may accrue to the couples, but most of them could easily be realized without changing marriage laws. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case that same-sex marriage will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable: Where governments have recognized same-sex marriages and civil unions, this recognition does not appear to have had any noticeable effect in this respect. In any case, the encouragement of commitment among homosexuals is simply not as important a goal as the encouragement of lasting heterosexual bonds.

Which brings us to the question of equality. Same-sex couples want their unions recognized by governments in large part as a symbolic affirmation of their equivalence, at least for public purposes, with traditional married couples. As individuals, of course, homosexuals are the equal of any other citizens in their rights to vote, own guns, speak freely, and so forth. But making them (or anyone else) feel valued is not a legitimate task of public policy; and their sexual relationships do not further the purposes for which governments should recognize marriage.

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel sexual desire into civilized patterns of living — and not just any sexual desire, but desire of the type that regularly produces children. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood or even same-sex romantic attachments. Governments can rightly take all kinds of steps that enable people to form, and prosper in, any of these relationships. They can make it possible for them to go about their lives in peace, and make it easier for them to establish the contractual arrangements that help with running a household. In none of those cases, however, is it necessary for the government to recognize the friendship or sexual relationship as such.

State recognition of same-sex sexual relationships singles out one kind of non-marital relationship and treats it as though it were marital, and it does this for no good reason. No, we do not expect marriage rates to plummet and illegitimacy rates to skyrocket in these jurisdictions over the next decade. But to the extent same-sex marriage is normalized here, it will be harder for American culture and law to connect marriage and parenthood. That it has already gotten harder over the last few decades is no answer to this concern. In foisting same-sex marriage on Iowa, the state’s supreme court opined in a footnote that the idea that it is best for children to have mothers and fathers married to each other is based merely on “stereotype.”

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.