A Disgrace at Notre Dame

I am a University of Notre Dame grad and I'm terribly disappointed that my school is intent on providing a platform for President Obama to lecture the Country on his pro-abortion beliefs.

For anyone who wants to "sign" the petition (almost 200,000 signers as of this morning) asking Notre Dame to end this outrage, the site is notredamescandal.com. While you're at it, you might want to email the President of Notre Dame, Fr. Jenkins, at president@nd.edu.

Of all the material published on this subject over the last week, I thought the press release and statement by many of the student groups at Notre Dame were the best. I re-produce those here:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
NOTRE DAME STUDENT GROUPS DENOUNCE UNIVERSITY’S CHOICE FOR
COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

NOTRE DAME, IN, 25 March 2009 — A number of student groups at the University of Notre Dame issued a statement today repudiating the University’s selection of President Barack Obama to deliver its 2009 Commencement Address. The statement criticizes the president’s position on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other life issues, and chastises University administration for apparently looking over what they termed “fundamental moral principles.”

The statement responds to Friday afternoon’s announcement of Obama as the speaker for the University’s 164th Commencement. Citing Catholic teaching on abortion, as well as the US Bishops’ 2004 document "Catholics in Political Life," which deals with issues surrounding a Catholic response to politicians who advocate abortion, the student statement expresses “deepest opposition” to the decision. “This is not a partisan issue; rather, it’s an issue of respect for human life, and our Catholic
character. We want to emphasize that we are not attacking the office of the President, but taking issue with his moral stances. I think the statement makes it clear that the student body of Notre Dame is not unequivocally in favor of this decision,” said senior Emily Toates of Notre Dame Right to Life.

An Ad Hoc committee sponsored by a coalition of University-sponsored student groups has been organized to lead student response. These groups include Notre Dame Right to Life, Jus Vitae (Notre Dame Law School Right to Life), the Irish Rover independent student newspaper, Notre Dame College Republicans, The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society, The Identity Project of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Knights of the Immaculata, Notre Dame Children of Mary, the Orestes Brownson Council,
Notre Dame Law St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society of the Notre Dame Law School.

STUDENT COALITION STATEMENT ON THE 2009 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.

The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.

It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.

Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.

In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.

In Notre Dame,
Notre Dame Right to Life
The Irish Rover Student Newspaper
Notre Dame College Republicans
The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society
Notre Dame Identity Project
Militia of the Immaculata
Children of Mary
Orestes Brownson Council
Notre Dame Law School Right to Life
Notre Dame Law St Thomas More Society
The Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School

First the WSJ, now the NYT

As regular readers here know, I've been noting the reassertion of Bush policies by President Obama for a very long time. Last weekend the Wall Street Journal caught up with ZACKlyRight and this past weekend the New York Times finally caught up. I give you the Times' entire editorial from Sunday, March 22 and I do apologize for making you have to read the gratuitous hatred directed toward President Bush but the underlying gist is notable (I bold the key phrases for those who might need a little help).

Mr. Obama and the Rule of Law

As much as it needs to happen, we never expected President Obama to immediately reverse every one of President George W. Bush’s misguided and dangerous policies on terrorism, prisoners, the rule of law and government secrecy. Fixing this calamitous mess will take time and care — and Mr. Obama has taken important steps in that direction.

But we did not expect that Mr. Obama, who addressed these issues with such clarity during his campaign, would be sending such confused and mixed signals from the White House. Some of what the public has heard from the Obama administration on issues like state secrets and detainees sounds a bit too close for comfort to the Bush team’s benighted ideas.

There are times when the president seems to be making a clean and definitive break. On his second day in office, he ordered the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay (Blogger's Note: Clean and definitive break? Guantanamo is still operating per the Geneva Conventions exactly as Bush left it.) and directed his cabinet to formulate new policies on detaining and interrogating people suspected of terrorist acts or of supporting terrorists.

Last week, the administration notified a federal court hearing appeals by Guantánamo inmates that it was dropping Mr. Bush’s absurd claim that he could declare anyone an “enemy combatant” and deprive that prisoner of judicial process. The administration affirmed its commitment to the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions and long-standing military doctrine.

But the break does not always seem complete enough. Even as they dropped the “enemy combatant” terminology, Mr. Obama’s lawyers did not seem to rule out indefinite military detentions for terrorism suspects and their allies. They drew a definition of association with Al Qaeda that is too broad (simply staying in a “safe house,” for example). Worse, they seemed to adopt Mr. Bush’s position that the “battlefield” against terrorism is the planet. That became the legal pretext for turning criminal defendants into lifelong military captives.

On Thursday, we were delighted to see Attorney General Eric Holder reverse the Bush policy on releasing documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Bush’s first attorney general, John Ashcroft, directed the government to assume that documents should not be released and to find pretexts to keep them secret. Mr. Holder directed all agencies to presume that “in the face of doubt, openness prevails.” And he said the policy applied to pending lawsuits against the Bush administration for refusing to disclose information.

It was great news, but also recalled our distress that the Justice Department had abandoned transparency just last month in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case involves five men who were seized and transported to American facilities abroad or countries known for torturing prisoners.

The Obama administration advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. Even the judges seemed surprised, asking whether the government wanted a delay to reconsider its position.

The Obama team should have taken the delay. It should now support bipartisan legislation to fix this problem by expanding judges’ powers to examine evidence the government wants to keep secret and decide whether to admit it based on facts rather than claims of presidential power. It is hard to fathom what signal Mr. Obama is trying to send by stifling cases that must be heard (Blogger's Note: How many times did I write prior to the election that during the debates Sen. Obama should have been asked, Of the Presidential powers assumed by President Bush at the expense of Congress, what powers are you immediately going to cede back to Congress if elected? Gee, the NYT can't fathom a reason.).

On the filing in the Guantánamo appeals, administration officials say — quite rightly — that they took an important step by declaring that their treatment of prisoners would be based on the law and not theories about executive power. They said that they had a deadline to file the document and that its discussion of prisoner policies pertained only to the Guantánamo inmates.

These arguments are persuasive for now. The test is whether they will be fully reflected in the results of the continuing policy reviews — and we assume they will. It is vital for Mr. Obama’s team to be as thorough and detailed as possible, ensuring that American policy respects the limits so clearly laid out by the nation’s laws and Constitution.

Mr. Obama also should stop resisting an investigation of Mr. Bush’s policies on terrorism, state secrets, wiretapping, detention and interrogation (Blogger's Note: Anyone fathom a guess as to why the resistance?). We know he is struggling with many Bush-created disasters — in the economy, in foreign policy and on and on. But understanding all that has gone wrong is the only way to ensure that abuses will truly end. That investigation should be done calmly rather than under the pressure of some new, shocking revelation.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is still proclaiming that waterboarding detainees prevented another attack. Among other things, an investigation would examine that assertion — for which Mr. Cheney offers no evidence, and which others have challenged.

Everyone wants to move forward. The only way to do that, and make sure the system of justice is working properly, is to know exactly how Mr. Bush broke it. (End of NYT editorial.)

I'll Stipulate the Rates are the Same

I contend the percentage of Republicans or conservatives hoping that the economy will continue to falter is exactly the same percentage of Democrats and liberals who were hoping for American GI deaths in Iraq prior to November 2008.

Of course, that the hope of the Democrats and liberals was much more vile than the hope of the Republicans and conservatives was probably the reason the liberal extremists who control the media did no reporting on the Democrats and liberals' hopes.

If you have the unpleasant experience of being in the presence of a delusional liberal who condemns Republicans or conservatives for a belief not spoken or written by any, simply say, "It's difficult to be lectured to by someone from a Party where too many hoped for American casualties in Iraq for political gain."

On Second Thought

"They (economic conditions) are not as bad as we think." - President Barack Obama commenting on the economy late last week.

Today, the Congressional Budget Office announced that President Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of deficits from now until 2019.

That's $2.3 trillion worse than President Obama declared.

Meanwhile, President Obama still thinks Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is doing "an outstanding job".

Wall Street Journal Validates ZACKlyRight

I don't need to give the Wall Street Journal any credit as the Journal borrowed my ideas. This was today's editorial:

Prisoners of W--

By now, President Obama's lather-rinse-repeat approach to the legal war on terror is familiar: He lambastes his predecessor, then makes cosmetic changes that leave the substance of Bush policy intact. But Mr. Obama's decision last week to renounce the term "enemy combatant" is almost a parody of this method, given that the "new standard" for detaining terrorists is identical to the old one.

Strunk & White counseled simplicity in prose, so whoever wrote the Justice Department's filing with the D.C. District Court learned his elements of style elsewhere. To avoid using enemy combatants, we instead get "individuals captured in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations," or "members of enemy forces," or "persons who [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

These gyrations are bizarre because the brief is actually a solid legal argument for detaining e---- c---------. Justice argues that the U.S. has the right to hold indefinitely, without legal charges, those who "substantially supported" al Qaeda or the Taliban, reserving the right to define what qualifies as "substantial" in each case. It also extends its writ to people who support terror networks away from the battlefield, such as financiers.

The concept of the unlawful enemy combatant is deeply rooted in international law and custom, including the Geneva Conventions. It refers to those who violate the laws of war by killing civilians or fighting out of uniform, and thus are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status. The Justice brief cites the Supreme Court's 2004 Hamdi decision, in which a plurality of Justices held that capture and detention is "so fundamental and accepted an incident to war" as to be an afterthought.

The one difference between the Bush and Obama detention standards concerns core executive powers. The Obama team argues that its authority flows from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act, which Congress passed after 9/11 and authorizes the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to prosecute "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the attack. Here, again, there is less than meets the eye. Bush lawyers also cited this act of Congress, but in addition they asserted inherent war power under the Constitution.

Eric Holder's Justice Department does not assert Commander in Chief prerogatives, but it doesn't disavow them either. Justice knows it doesn't need the argument given Hamdi and that it appeases the anti-antiterror left not to echo every Bush claim. The risk is that Mr. Obama could one day face a more isolationist GOP Congress, run by a Tom DeLay or a Senator William Borah that is unwilling to endorse the President's national-security policies. Then Justice will not be able to cite its own precedents as the courts intrude on executive war powers.

We're delighted that Mr. Obama has come around on one of the most rancorous controversies of the last eight years. Even so, Mr. Obama's supporters must be suffering some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder (see my post of February 18, 2009), because on the range of Bush antiterror policies that Mr. Obama has largely preserved -- interrogation, surveillance, rendition, state secrets, now detention -- no one seems to be vilifying him with the same intensity. Or maybe the problem with President Bush's policies was that they were President Bush's policies. (End of Wall Street Journal editorial that borrowed heavily from themes shared here for many weeks.)

Nouri al-Maliki, US Commander-in-Chief

These are the opening lines of an Associated Press story that ran in today’s Boston Globe under the headline - Iraq to delay pullout of US in some areas; Maliki wants troops to help secure regions:

“Bagdad - US troops will not be removed from areas of Iraq that are not completely secure or where there is a high probability that attacks could resume after the Americans leave, Iraq's prime minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview with the Associated Press that he had told President Obama and other top US officials that any troop withdrawals "must be done with our approval" and in coordination with the Iraqi government.

‘I do not want any withdrawals except in areas considered 100 percent secure and under control. Any area where there is a likelihood of a resumption of attacks - withdrawals from there will be postponed,’ Maliki said during his flight from Australia to Baghdad at the end of a five-day visit.” (End of AP excerpt.)

Obviously I missed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Tone Deaf Emporer

"They (economic conditions) are not as bad as we think." - President Barack Obama commenting on the economy.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported American families lost 18% of their net worth in 2008, the biggest loss since the Federal Reserve began keeping track after World War II. The report said Americans lost $11 trillion dollars -- a decline that equals the combined annual output of Germany, Japan and Britain.

Surge, Baby, Surge!

This was the lead editorial of Sunday’s Boston Globe:

Obama's Afghan challenge
March 8, 2009

As President Obama prepares to send 17,000 fresh troops to Afghanistan, anxieties about a Vietnam-style quagmire are rising. There are no quick victories over guerrilla forces, especially on the forbidding terrain of Afghanistan. With all the other crises confronting him, the last thing Obama needs is a war without end in Central Asia.

However, the 17,000 new troops may actually help avoid a quagmire. The long-term challenge Obama faces in Afghanistan is to prevent a Taliban takeover that would, once again, provide a safe haven in that country for Al Qaeda. The troops may help counter a spring offensive from the Taliban and its allies, so that decisions about long-range policy are not made in an atmosphere of immediate crisis. If deployed wisely, the new troops may also reduce casualties among Afghan civilians - a crucial determinant of success against the Taliban.

A related aim is to prevent extremists on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border from causing the disintegration of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

These nightmare scenarios are imaginable today because of errors by the previous administration. These include failures to funnel substantial reconstruction assistance through the government of President Hamid Karzai; to disarm warlords' militias; to create and train honest security forces able to protect civilians; and to provide Afghan farmers with sufficient incentives to get them out of the poppy-growing business.

To fix the mess, Obama will need to develop a sound counterinsurgency strategy. This does not mean trying to replicate the methods applied in Iraq. The two countries differ radically in landscape, ethnic diversity, and political history. Nonetheless, there are two generalized lessons from Iraq that can be useful for Afghanistan.

One is that any effort to roll back the Taliban must begin with effective protection of Afghan civilians. Opinion surveys and observers on the ground indicate that most Afghans abhor and fear the fanatical Taliban. But if villagers in Taliban-infested regions are not protected, they cannot resist the ruthless extremists.

A second applicable lesson from Iraq is that many of the Taliban's current allies can be peeled away from the insurgency. Local warlords, tribal leaders, and village elders can be detached from - or turned against - the Taliban by means of monetary, political, and patronage rewards.
Meanwhile, Obama must seek cooperation not only from Pakistan but from Afghanistan's other neighbors, including Iran. This won't be easy, but it is doable. There are ways to avoid an Afghan quagmire. (End of editorial)

So, now the Boston Globe is supportive of a "surge". Ignore the fact that President Obama hasn't told us the national security reason that more troops are headed to Afghanistan. Ignore he hasn't described what victory will look like or announced a fixed date for withdrawal. The editorial reads like a defense of "nation building" instead of a defense of military action bent on defeating a "clear and present danger" to the United States. Not properly transitioning Afghanis from poppy growers! Who knew it should have been that easy?

Nowhere have I heard Sen. John F. Kerry ask how President Obama intends to "win the peace".

Bush's Third Term VII (Amended)

Very early this morning I added a short post that President Obama is boycotting the Durban II Conference - Promoting Hatred of Israel for the same exact reasons that President Bush ordered Secretary of State Colin Powell to walkout on Durban I.

Since that time I've been to my son's hockey practice and read the morning "news"paper. I now add an Amendment to today's post.

This was the headline and a few sentences from an AP story from February 28:

US to boycott UN racism conference
By Matthew Lee and Edith Lederer, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Friday that the United States will boycott an upcoming U.N. conference on racism unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion.

"President Obama's decision not to send U.S. representation to the April event is the right thing to do and underscores America's unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings," the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said. (End Excerpt)

Amendment

The AP is reporitng this morning that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (who works for President Obama; oh, and he's Latino for the skin-color obsessed) "said yesterday that he is upholding the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) decision to remove gray wolves from the Federal endagered species list in the northern Rockies and the western Great Lakes."

You have to love this quote from Jamie Rappaport Clark, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and a former USFWS director under Clinton, "What we had hoped for was the new administration would have taken a deep breath and elevated the science. Whether it's Kempthorne or Salazar, the concern remains the same. It's the same plan that I fear doesn't protect the gray wolf's long-term sustainability."

The Emperor is wearing Bush's Clothes.

But at the Second or Third They're Good

I cannot make this up, these are two consecutive sentences from the lead editorial of the Boston Sunday Globe from March 1, 2009:

"Under the Obama plan, however, most of the increased taxes . . . would be delayed until the economy has righted itself. The new administration does not want its tax hikes to squelch the first signs of an upturn."