This week a Rhode Island Congressman was threatened with excommunication and instructed to refrain from Communion by a Roman Catholic Bishop, due to public positions he has taken as a Congressman.  That's a flagrant violation of the Establishment Doctrine, that is, separation of church and state.  A church leader can say anything he wants (short of advocating violence) about the operation of his church, and I'll defend his right to do that.  But when he criticizes and threatens a Congressman, regardless of party or political stripe, for the positions he takes on proposed legislation, that church leader has crossed a very serious line.

From the New York Post, November 23rd issue: "An ultraconservative bishop has banned Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving Holy Communion because the Democratic congressman supports abortion rights, Kennedy says. ... "The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said he had instructed priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the Providence Journal for an article published yesterday. "[He told me] I am not a good, practicing Catholic because of the positions I've taken as a public official."

Note the phrase, "because of positions I have taken as a public official."  That's not the same as "statements I made at a church meeting," is it.  The Bishop is acting against Kennedy due to his positions as a Congressman.  I thought Patrick's uncle John F. settled this issue in 1960, when he assured the American people that his Church would not influence his duties as Senator or President.  Here we are, back to square one.  Does this action by one bishop call into question the fidelity and trustworthiness of any Roman Catholic candidate?  I hope not.  But I'm not hearing strict-constructionist conservatives object to this overt attempt to influence a Congressman's policy position.

So, I ask:  Where is the outrage?  How many 'conservatives' use that term of convenience to cover their own special interests, rather than to advocate the spectrum of Constitutional and economic conservative principles?  He or she who is not merely a "conservative in name only" please stand up.  And while you're up, please register your objection to this brazen attempt to mix church and state.
  I.

So, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9, 2009 -  nominated TWO WEEKS after he took on the office of President.  He established peace in the world in two weeks - an amazing accomplishment!  I thought he would get one for economics, for trebling the US national debt.  Or maybe a prize for medicine, for telling people to get their flu shots?

If the Nobel organization awards prizes for intentions to establish world peace, where are the awards for over 100,000 US Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen who have each put themselves in harm's way and served above-and-beyond, to bring peace to violence-torn and corrupt countries?  Where are their international humanitarian awards for putting their lives on the line, while building schools, clean water facilities, safe roads, and other infrastructure for the people?  And where are the awards for their Coalition comrades in arms, and for the brave Iraqi and Afghan citizens who are fighting to take control of their own country?

I'm usually skeptical of the on-air comments of George Stephanopolous, considering his deep roots in the Clinton Administration.  So, an 'honest' comment from him that doesn't serve the Democrats is worth noting.

His comment on ABC News this morning on hearing the news of Obama's prize award, was "This isn't April First, is it?"  This could only be an April Fools' joke, and George gained a little more credibility in my book for this statement. And the Nobel organization gained less.

Go figure.
  I.

Occasionally I observe that the influence of power and money crosses party lines - there is no single political party that gets more of it (although it does ebb and flow from one election to the next), or is above its influence. This example deserves wider awareness. He is one of many.

Here's a well-documented example.  Hassan Nemazee has financed and supported Clintons, Bushes, and others at different times, probably for his own advantage and without regard to any political principles or patriotic ideals.  He even obtained Venezuelan citizenship because he thought it would bring him some advantage.  Now he's up on fraud charges, and his history is coming out.  It always comes down to power and money.

If you check out the Web site http://www.alternet.org/ , most of the articles are anti-Republican.  Perhaps the motivation for the writer might be that he was offended when he found that Hillary Clinton's chief fundraiser had once done the same for George W. Bush?

Anyhow, for your consideration ...

There's a Lot More to Arrested Financier Hassan Nemazee's Past Than Just Being a 'Clinton Fundraiser'

By Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy.com
Posted on August 28, 2009, Printed on September 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142303/

 
The original article can be found at WhoWhatWhy.com

I.


Please post in the Comments, other examples of political contributors who give to more than one side.  There's an interesting trend here.
  Thanks!

As the Brits and Russians demonstrated before us, Afghanistan, as it has existed for the past century and more, is a quagmire - an anarchy whose fragments are governed by war lords and militias.  Afghans are fiercely independent people, and the best we can do (and the best that most Americans want to accomplish) is to help the Afghan people to recover their independence.  The success story for us here, as in Iraq, would be for an independent and self-sufficient Afghan government to "provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility" on its own.  Our military objective is to get the Talaban and Al Qaida out of the country.  That goal is necessary, but not sufficient for lasting peace.

The core problem that has made Afghanistan fragmented and defenseless is economic.  The primary national cash crop at this point is opium poppy.  I don't think the US is investing its precious military resources to make the country safe for drug dealers.  There have been some US and international organizations who have built schools, infrastructure, and institutions.  But these investments, while commendable starts, have not proven to be sufficient to enable the local economy to thrive.

The scale of the problem requires a force equal in size to our military investment.  What could we (US and Coalition) accomplish with a force of agronomists, soil scientists, civil engineers, and natural resources development specialists?  What if the Afghan government (or better, a private enterprise) could marshal thousands of disaffected young men who would otherwise join a militia, into a Civilian Conservation Corps?  Consider the effect on a much smaller country, Israel, of thousands of trees, irrigation, new farms, and agribusiness resources, that made the desert bloom in just 30 years.  The best antidote to Communism, fundamentalism, and ignorance is prosperity.  Enable the people in the provinces to make a good living, one that does not involve the drug or arms trade, and they will have no use for fundamentalist militias.

True, for a while the military presence will be necessary to protect the builders.  But as the infrastructure and enterprise projects start to show results, Afghans will (as people in other regions have done) step up to protect their own homes and enterprises.

As an approach that encourages individual initiative and entrepreneurship, Conservatives can support it.  And if our President really was the "community organizer" he claims, how could he not support it?  That leaves the hard-core Communists and militant Jihadists to oppose it, and as they self-identify they can be dealt with quietly and discredited.

What would it take to get this fresh, yet ancient, common-sense approach in front of the policy makers?

All those who want a lasting peace in Afghanistan, and an example for other poverty-stricken countries to the route to freedom, prosperity, and independence, please stand up.

 

The Washington Times on Monday, September 21, 2009, posted a thought-provoking story, of what's behind the recent Acorn videos -

My take:
Why is it so hard to get the public media to report a massive betrayal of public trust when it occurs on the liberal side, when they will shout every detail when they find something they don't like on the conservative side?  Whatever happened to objectivity in journalism?

Oh, I forgot - a national survey a few years ago showed that 80% of journalists who would admit to any political party at all (and many others don't vote at all), identified themselves as Democrats.  Even "centrist" journalists and editors are underrepresented in the 'mainstream' media, and there are horror stories of what happens when a journalist fails to toe the liberal party line.  "Kill the messenger," indeed.  It's almost funny, how prominent writers who paint themselves as against discrimination, are so discriminatory, even bullying, in their campaign to tell only one story to the public.  Here's an example of a story with ample evidence that they (the individuals and news organizations that Breitbart cites in a comment to the article, at the same link) refused to report until embarrassed into mentioning it.

No wonder the main networks' news show ratings are falling, and most newspaper subscriptions are off.  Most Americans don't like to watch or read propaganda, and don't appreciate being taken for fools.

I.

BTW, does somebody in the forum have a footnote to the study about journalists and their political party and whether they vote?  The survey was conducted about ten years ago.  I used to have the reference, but couldn't find it today.  Please post as a comment.  Thanks!