Pelosi: The New Catholic Theologian?

I think Nancy Pelosi's appearance on Meet the Press just shows to what extent pro-abortion Catholics like Pelosi (and Joe Biden and John Kerry) will go to deny their own faith in the protection of Barack Obama's misstep at the Saddleback Forum and in support of Roe v. Wade (See Video).

No matter what Nancy Pelosi says, the Catholic Church is "not" in some kind of quandary over abortion. They are clearly against it. In fact, abortion aside, they have even been against birth control. That belief is as old as the Old Testament reference to it being a sin if you "spill your seed on the ground." The Catholic Church has, as long as I have lived, believed that human life begins at conception. There have been those within the Catholic Church who have argued that a human life is not a human life until the "soul" actually occupies the body. But, the Catholic Church has never been in some kind of "crap-shoot" mode as to when that might actually occur. Instead, without any clear proof as to when a human becomes a "human with a soul", the "Church" has always taken the safe route and have said "at conception".

I can't believe that the Catholic Church hasn't spoken out against what Pelosi said on Sunday's "Meet the Press". To me, this is an attempt to rewrite the beliefs of the Catholic Church and to literally create a Catholic Church according to Nancy Pelosi (for the benefit of a political platform). She did this publicly on a nationally televised show and it totally distorts the truth. What ever happened to the Church's supposed stand against those Catholic politician's who promote or practice abortion? If they would "excommunicate" people like Pelosi, as they have threatened to do in the past, this kind of religious B.S. from a so-called practicing Catholic wouldn't ever happen again. Apparently, having rich Catholics and their donations (like Pelosi, the Kennedy family, and John Kerry) is more important than protecting the teachings and precepts of the "Catholic Church"!

Image of Pope by Agencia Brasil with Creative Commons Licensing remix/adapt/modify permission (Click For more Information). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry.

Image of Nancy Pelosi is Public Image of the United States Government with public domain authority (Click for more Information). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry.

Obama v. Thomas and Obama v. Himself

During the Saddleback Forum this last Saturday, I think one of the most "gotcha moments" for Barack Obama was inflected by himself during this exchange (Click to see the video snippet) If you listened carefully, he said that he wouldn't have voted for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court because: "I don't think he was as expeh(??)...as strong enough jurist or legal thinker...at the time..."

Obama caught himself and stopped from saying "wasn't as experienced". He went onto define inexperience (without actually saying it) by saying "strong enough" and finished with "...at the time". When he aborted his completion of the word "experienced," he knew damn well that, if he had continued with that line of reasoning, he would have shed light on his own failings as not being qualified to be President. Yet, for Obama, experience was important when deciding upon a member of the Supreme Court. Think what you might about that but, I think it's a bit hypocritical.

When he used the words, "at the time", it was a strange interjection of thought because it sort of implies that Clarence Thomas has, now, become what Obama objected to in the beginning. Does he now mean that Clarence Thomas has become an excellent "jurist" and "legal thinker"? Not listened "on" to what Barack Obama was saying!

I think it was a very interesting moment. It just shows how "crafty" Mr. Obama is as a politician. Totally unwilling to make a firm commitment. This is why, if you listened to him in any unscripted environment, like the Saddleback Forum, he constantly uses "tah" and "ah" as a delaying tactic as he formulates the words that he thinks "you want to hear" and not necessarily what he believes. If he isn't using a teleprompter, he is always in some kind of a dance before his audiences. He can't just say what he believes and go on to substantiate that belief with reasons. Instead, he has to leave the door open on his conviction by making conditional statements like "at the time". That comment, like a lot of what he says, just shows the blanket weakness of his convictions. Or, worst yet, shows that his convictions are so extreme that he cautiously hides them with conditional statement after conditional statement.

As for John McCain, that night, he showed no hesitation or equivocation on "any" of his answers. For that evening, John McCain was absolutely the "straight talker" that he had always been known as. When someone is that direct with their thoughts, as McCain was that night, he was clearly saying what he believes in and not trying to say something that he thinks you want to hear. On the other hand, throughout that "forum", Obama was "strained" on a number of issues. For example, on abortion, he wouldn't define as to when a fetus was actually a human and entitled to any rights. Instead he made his famous "above my pay grade" comment and said that he wasn't qualified to make that judgment from either "a theological perspective or a scientific perspective." Of course, this is just some more Obama B.S. because his voting record certainly shows that no fetus is entitled to any rights as a human until such time as the mother says it can live; even, sometimes, after being born alive (See Full Story).

I think Saturday's Saddleback Forum clearly showed "why" Obama is so able to throw people and ideas under the bus and change his mind so often. He really has no convictions! With that in mind, I defy anyone to actually tell me who Barack Obama really is and what he really stands for! If you do try, my guess is that, within hours to days (and, literally, sometimes, within minutes), he will change his opinion and completely or partially contradict what you "thought" he stood for!

Image by dbking's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

The Saddleback Forum

Last night, Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum between Barack Obama and John McCain was the most refreshing change in Presidential politics that I have seen since the adoption of the town hall format (See Full Story). I have gotten so tired of the debate-less debate format of the past that I generally don't pay attention to them anymore. Warren's format forced each candidate to simply answer a series of questions with the other candidate unable to hear the answers. The viewer was then able to determine whether or not each candidate, independently, had a grasp of the issues and whether or not they were able to effectively express their viewpoints. How simple is that!

A lot will be written about whether or not John McCain or Barack Obama won the night; so, I am not going to get into that. However, I would hope that last night's format was the beginning of new standard for political fact finding in the future. I think that the average viewer walked away from that format with a better understanding of the two candidates than if they had watched ten of the more traditional debates between the two. This format, more than anything else, put style on the back burner with substance up front. For me, it "cut through the fog" of the normal debate format. A great job!

Image by speakingoffaith's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).