1 - 10 of 48 Comments

1. Andrew E. Malone

   4 years ago

   Ed Burke,
   
   As difficult as it is for committed leftist like you to understand, any political movement which wraps it policies of state sponsored coercive philanthropy in reality has no interest in uplifting the poor but only the desire to supply their supporters with well paying jobs to perpetuate the problem. Where do you work and who pays you for ardor and compassion?
   The specious observation of the uninsured in this country number in the Millions (now discovered to be based on counting illegal Aliens and convicts) is equivalent to not having health is obviously patently false. Insurance and access to health care have nothing to do each other as the near universal bankruptcy of the majority of border state medical systems attest. The clear falsity of the proposition should be an embarrassment to honest advocate.
   
   For nearly a decade, I have recommended that the Catholic Church be restricted from all government grants which she has prostituted herself and the Gospel to protect their corrupt bargain and that they and all "charitable" institutions lose their tax exempt status and contribute to the general fund if they insist upon laying burdens on others that they themselves are unwilling to bear.
   
   The current crisis in the economy due to the forced subprime lending to the inept parasitical dregs of society is a clear indictment of the folly of allowing Government to engage in any philanthropy. Government Philanthropy is patronage with a quid pro quo exchange of benefits or employment for votes.
   
   In the time it took President Bush to liberate 65 Million oppressed Afghans and Iraqi from odious and evil regimes, Obama supported the unlimited wholesale aggressive death of 7 million children. What is the scale of morality that you apply to that equation?

2. Adam

   4 years ago

   Sorry Goor, I'm afraid he is.

3. Serge

   4 years ago

   Perhaps Doug Kmiec and the Democrats should work on reallocating all Federal Funds being used for performing abortions to support their new spending proposals of increasing pre-natal care, maternity leave and adoptive services which seem to all be pro-family and pro-life goals. If they're not willing to eliminate abortions, then its all lip service. Until I see actions that reflect a pro-life agenda, then the Democrats platform is irrelevant.

4. Ed Burke

   4 years ago

   Would Pro-Life policy's include: millions of Americans with no health insurance?
   
   No long term energy policy beyond letting gas and heating oil produce massive windfall profits on the backs of working family's and the elderly ?
   Invading Iraq after Pope John Paul II said it would be an unjust war to do so ?
   
   Tax Breaks for the Rich, make that the MEGA rich, while not properly funding Social Security with a large Boomer generation that has their retirement investments diminished by a crashing Economy, and the continued devaluation of the US Dollar ?
   
   Jailing women so desperate they murder their own unborn child, THAT is the Pro-Life solution to the problem of Abortion ? I suppose I should be glad they don't execute them.
   
   Texas the Death Penalty Leader when Bush was Texas Governor, but he's a real dyed in the wool Pro Lifer, not just a political con man ? If I believe that will you tell me another one ?
   
   John Mc Same as Bush doesn't trouble anyone?
   
   The "Good Fruit" of the 8 years of the Bush Administration ? Found any yet ? Anyone ?

5. mynameisgoor

   4 years ago

   You are not right.

6. Thomas

   4 years ago

   Party platform language is seldom inspiring; indeed, the language proposed for the Democratic platform lacks the rhetorical depth of Senator Obama's own statements discouraging abortion and recognizing its moral dilemmas, and it certainly lacks the Senator's law teacher's grasp of how the mental health exception has left the law unthinkingly with abortion on demand.
   
   But the purpose of party platforms are to cobble together lists of tangible steps to launch campaign rhetoric toward legislative achievement. In this, the Democratic platform language on abortion takes several notable steps toward specific, constructive ways to honor human life.
   
   The Party platform is available online, Professor Kmiec. Given that, I have to wonder if you've abandoned your critical faculties, or think we have.

7. Scott Smyers

   4 years ago

   How can any Catholic ever consider voting for Democrats. There isn't a single position they have that is pro-religion, or pro - life, or pro- community.
   Taxing the productive members of society to buy votes isn't social justice.

8. Gunther Steinberg

   4 years ago

   The problem with Catholic dogma is that it is the word of just men. Even their highest voice is elected from a group of power seekers within the Church. Controlling the fate of one's own life and making decision on whether to propagate or not is personal, not to be dictated by a blind faith in anything or anyone. Catholics should not try to impose their beliefs on others, just as the reverse is true. The Church has enough unforgivable sins in its past that killed untold thousands all over the world. Keep your rules to those that choose to live by them.

9. Not impressed

   4 years ago

   I've come to the conclusion that Kmiec is suffering from Andrew Sullivan's disease of idolatry. He cannot be serious, here. This platform is thin gruel, and the strongest words in it are for the unfailing support for Roe v Wade, which means everything else will expediently fall by the wayside right after the election, as always. Kmiec is making no sense.

10. tomjones

    4 years ago

    It's a shame that not one of you commenter's trashing Prof. Kmiec have addressed what he said on the merits. I'm not sure you even read what he wrote.

Leave a Comment