Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

Monday, May 21, AD 2012

William Peter Blatty, well-known novelist, author of the Exorcist, a Georgetown graduate, class of 1950, is spearheading an effort to force Georgetown to reform, or to cease to call itself Catholic.  Here is his letter:

Dear Friends,

I invite you today to join me in The Father King Society to Make Georgetown Honest, Catholic, and Better by signing on to a very special effort here. I ask you also to curtail your donations to Georgetown University for one year.

The late Jesuit Father Thomas M. King was a good friend. I had the privilege of lecturing his theology class, which started the rumor that he had inspired my priestly character in The Exorcist. Father King inspired many other things; and our effort now.

On May 5, 2012, in a speech to American bishops, Pope Benedict XVI called on America’s Catholic universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity. The Pope noted the failure of many Catholic universities to comply with Blessed John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. The Pope said that preservation of a university’s Catholic identity “entails much more than the teaching of religion or the mere presence of a chaplaincy on campus.”

For 21 years now. Georgetown University has refused to comply with Ex corde Ecclesiaie (“From The Heart of the Church”), and, therefore, with canon law. And, it seems as if every month GU gives another scandal to the faithful! The most recent is Georgetown’s obtuse invitation to Secretary Sebelius to be a commencement speaker.

Each of these scandals is proof of Georgetown’s non-compliance with Ex corde Ecclesiae and canon law. They are each inconsistent with a Catholic identity, and we all know it. A university in solidarity with the Church would not do these prideful things that do so much harm to our communion. (You can pen a heartfelt letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and the Holy Father offering your own experience here.)

In the months to come, The Father King Society will ask Georgetown and the Church for explanations and decisions. In 1991, in an effort led by courageous Georgetown students, my dearly missed classmate, GU Law Center Prof. Richard Alan Gordon, took the awesome step of submitting a canon law petition asking the Church to remove Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic. Then Dean of Students John J. DeGioia had authorized the funding of a pro-abortion student advocacy group. A contemporaneous secret memorandum from the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities to the presidents of all Jesuit institutions showed us that Dr. DeGioia’s decision was part of a larger scheme: GU was to be the dissident leader for others to follow. Dean Gordon’s effort was provocative and drastic, but within months of the filing, Rome required Georgetown to reverse itself, and Georgetown did.

Father Tom King was actively involved and submitted an essay to be used in support of the canon law action. (We post it here.) Soon after the 1991 “GU Choice” funding, a meeting took place on campus that collected the students, teachers, alumni and parents who had reacted to the University’s scandal in diverse ways. Fr. King listened intently, and then the mild-speaking priest told us of a call the night before from his brother, also a priest. His brother had said, “Tom, you have to choose sometimes — either you fish or cut bait.” Father King told us that he had decided to fish. And now, at long last, so have I. I ask you to join us!

For almost two decades, The Cardinal Newman Society has pursued with true inspiration and devotion its unique ministry to strengthen Catholic higher education in America. CNS has agreed to help us. Likewise, the St. Joseph’s Foundation, a Texas charity that focuses on canon law, has been a source of valuable information. We appreciate the help of both apostolates.

We may choose to file a canon action again, one much larger in scale and seeking alternative forms of relief that will include, among others, that Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic and Jesuit be revoked or suspended for a time. We will ask for lesser relief as well. Of course, what we truly seek is for Georgetown to have the vision and courage to be Catholic but clearly the slow pastoral approach has not worked. I invite you to sign the “Mandate of Procurator” on this website so that I, and other alumni, parents, teachers and students, may represent you in this special and historic Church petition.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

  • This is a sad article for me. I didn’t realize that Father King had passed away. He was a good priest. He was one of those old people who can relate to the young in a natural way. He had a taste for Teilhard that I never understood, but he was as orthodox as the day is long.

    I remember one day when I and three other guys were the only attendees at a Mass of his. There was a point in the text where he was supposed to make a reference to “brothers and sisters”. He said “brothers”. I got such a kick out of that.

    For so long it’s been a truism that most Jesuits are unimpressive, but the good ones are fantastic. I hope the order has seen an influx of new, devout priests the way some other institutions have. It’d be a tremendous loss if the last pillars of Jesuit greatness disappear and go unreplaced.

  • It is sad how at a so called catholic university you get kicked out of a room for calling out a tyrant murderer. It is a lot more like the fake catholic church in China which is in accord with the government and calls itself catholic but is not in accordance with the Vicar of Christ. Liars need to be pointed out and cleared from the ranks.

  • As a member of the class of ’62 I just skipped my 50th Reunion for all of the reasons stated by Mr. Blatty. I believed that I would have been a hypocrite to attend and appear by my presence to be tacitly condoning Georgetown’s steady march to the ‘dark side’. My only comment to my friends is that “Georgetown has lost its soul”

The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare

Sunday, February 12, AD 2012

Daffyd at the blog Big Lizards has a post which spells out what everyone should understand now:  ObamaCare in general, and the HHS Mandate in particular, was never about healthcare:

Never was it about health insurance for the poor and uninsured; it was always about the federal government seizing control not only of the health care of individuals but also nationalizing those state and local health programs already in place.  ObamaCare was, first and last, a power grab by the federal government at the expense of states, local governments, and individual Americans.

So please, let’s not imitate Captain Renault in Casablanca — shocked, shocked to discover that Barack Obama has violated our First-Amendment right to freedom of religion!  In fact, that specific mandate was at the heart of ObamaCare tyranny:  a frontal assault on the Catholic church in particular, which is so virulently hated by the gay-activist and feminist wings of the Left.

The only element of this policy that should shock anyone is the unbelievably hamfisted way that Obama decreed it:  A politically savvy politician would have patiently held off until after the election, giving himself two years to allow the furor to die down.

Instead, the president once again mistook unanimity among his left-liberal friends for a Progressivist “consensus” among the American people; he lives in a bubble of epistemic closure, talking only to true-blue believers on the left.  I formerly gave him the nickname “Lucky Lefty,” because (a) he is left handed, (b) he is left-leaning, and (c) he was extraordinarily lucky.  Well he’s still (a) and (b), but not so much (c) anymore, so I can no longer call him that.

Obama’s new nickname is “Bubble Boy,” honoring his world view.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare

  • Pro-Church is it. It is both pro-choice and pro-life. It is where unchanging, all encompassing Word does bring hope and change when that becomes one’s choice.

  • “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force; like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington, Farewell Address

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” J. Adams

  • Obamacare was a power grab? I knew that in 2009 and wrote a little blog entry to record my thoughts on it.

    I would like to see American Catholic’s thoughts on George Will’s comments over the weekend. I can’t say I entirely disagree with him.

  • Government can only testify to the NO commandments. No killing, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting, because at this point, another citizen’s civil rights are being violated, but there is no civil law being broken in not loving a neighbor. We wish the High Priest, and the Levite stopped to help the man who fell among robbers, but it took a Samaritan.
    If government could heal the sick and raise the dead, then, and only then, could government mandate insurance coverage to pay for these works of mercy.
    Obamacare cannot mandate that the Catholic Church buy Obamacare and then make non-participation a criminal offense with penalties, because a crime has not been committed. If Obamacare could heal the sick and raise the dead without Divine Providence, then Obamacare could mandate coverage, but Obamacare cannot. All healing and raising the dead is accomplished through Divine Mercy, through the laws of nature and nature’s God, the works of mercy and charity. The bronze serpent from the desert of sin on a pole is the symbol of the medical profession. Government cannot mandate healing, nor raising the dead, nor works of mercy, nor of charity. Government can only mandate what government can do- civil obedience to the laws of nature and nature’s God.
    In Hillarycare, a doctor was to be sent to federal prison for two years for healing a sick person not authorized by Hilliarycare, thereby criminalizing the practice of medicine. If Hillary care could have healed the sick and raised the dead, then there might be a penalty for not adhering, but Hillarycare could not. Likewise, Romneycare penalized non-participants for supposedly not healing the citizens, but Romneycare could not heal the citizens nor raise the dead, either.
    Obamacare is trying to mandate a penalty for not healing the sick and raising the dead. Obamacare cannot heal the sick and raise the dead. But the Catholic Church through the Sacraments of healing and reconciliation, and especially the Holy Eucharist, prayers and petitions to God can heal the sick and raise the dead. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not mandating any penalty for the government for non-compliance. The penalty must be commensurate to the crime. If the Catholic Church refuses to comply with an unlawful mandate, so too, the government can refuse to comply with an unlawful mandate.

    This is one step away from Hitler ordering the massacre of Jews and if one did not obey one suffered the penalty of death, like treason in war. The Catholic Church has never taken an oath to buy Obamacare and cannot be held to disobedience or treason.

  • T. Shaw
    The crown of king was offered to then President for two terms, George Washington. George Washington turned down the crown as king, nor would George Washington accept a third term as president.

  • It never was about healthcare and the Bishops were wrong to support ObamaCare. This was entirely foreseeable. It is time to pay the piper.

  • Obama once said he’d rather be an effective one term president than an ineffective two term president. This was one of the few times he wasn’t lying. By effective he means, of course, advancing (er, imposing) leftist ideology. And at that he has been amazingly effective. He has done more toward that end in just over three years than Reagan ever could in advancing conservatism in eight years, no matter how hard he tried.

    Obama, like any other good bully (and that’s what he is a leftist bully), is a master at preying upon the fear of his victims. And the right in this country are, by and large, to use a childhood term, frady cats. I mean, Obama openly attacks the First Amendment and the best the one who many conservatives look to as the futire, Marco Rubio can do is come up with is to propose a “Conscience Protection Act” that is an erroneously unwitting admission that the First Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. Furthermore, for this “act” to become, it would require the president’s signature. And you can forget about overriding his veto in Harry’s Hellhole, aka the U.S. Senate.

    He also knows that he is gonna be running against an empty suit in Novemeber. Okay, Santorum is probably the best empty suit, but an empty suit nonetheless.

    And he also knows the USCCB are nothing but a bunch of empty cassocks, whose collective episcopal motto ought to be “Ideology Runneth over my Theology”.

    And when you consider that leftist bureaucrats run all the important government agencies, including the Pentagon (after 27 years working in DoD if you include my eight years of active duty in the Navy), the left runs the government no matter who gets elected.

    So, against theis backdrop, you really don’t have to be all that politically saavyf you’re a commtted leftist like Obama.

  • We are at war. The left in this country must be put under the figurative ” ban “. It is a fight to the death weather we Catholics realize it or not. Obama and the democrats are for real, people! Even now I am afraid that most people cannot or will not see this reality. Oh well, what to do?

  • Tom,

    You have a good idea. For the Church it would be “interdict.” I looked it up.

    Here is a part of the blurb. “Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment.”

    The clerics, especially the society of judas dastards, and laity that signed that petition supporting the state denial of Church liberty need to be placed under interdict.

  • The original “debate” over health care reform, ie, the propaganda, was to about portability, accessibility and affordability. It was never about those things, nor about ‘health care’ reform. This was all along a power play and Sebeilius and others are given unfettered and unreviewable powers to impose slavish adherence to their statist principles. Instead of accessibility, you now or soon will have “coercive self rationing” and government control over the human person and the subsidiary institutions entrusted with care; instead of efficiencies leading to cost savings, you will see onerous taxation and penalties; instead of portability you will soon have the private sector intentionally put out of the health care business and full, complete and dominant control by HHS committee over what will be covered—so that portability will no longer be an issue.

    This was all in the original house bill which CHA and USCCB advocated—with of course the lip service to protecting conscience and excluding public funding for abortion. You are playing a game with marxists so it’s important to understand that the broader issue concerning ‘health care’ is about control. Soon, as in a mere few years, “Catholic” will be removed from every hospital, and then next they will be coming for your schools.

  • T Shaw,
    I was actually thinking more of the ban as in Joshua conquering the promised land. Every last vestige of leftism needs to be rubbed out with extreme prejudice. Leftism is extreme and is in the business of rubbing out the Church in the US. I know this sounds perhaps a bit intense, but we are really facing an existential threat and have been for close to forty-five years at least. One could argue the threat goes all the way back to the Enlightenment, or Eden for that matter. My point is that the response of many in the Church right now is inadequate to the challenge. We are not responding with the same level of ” fight ” with which we are being attacked.

  • Tom and CTHEMFLY25,


    This HHS mandate is about control and malice toward Holy Mother the Chruch.

    Paul A. Rahe at, ” . . . reason why Sebelius, Pelosi, and Obama decided to proceed. They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both. They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.”

    There are not enough bullets.

  • Tom & T Shaw,

    How does one without recourse to violence stomp out liberal leftism, progressivism, liberal democracy (two wolves & one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) or whatever term we may use to describe this phenomenon. I do not support initiating force to achieve that end. In the times of the ancient Israelites, God did order the initiation of force, but those times and circumstances were different. If we initiate force today, then we become as evil as those whom we seek to replace.

    That being said, I do think that even should we be successful in ejecting Obama from the Oval Office in the November elections, the liberals won’t go quitely. They will evenutally initiate force against us and I think we have to let them. It would be far preferrable to convince them of the rightness of our position, but I fear they have gone too far down the path to be persuaded. Even if SCOTUS were to reverse Roe v Wade, they will not give up abortion without a physical fight. But once they initiate force, then we have every right to defend ourselves and the game changes. That game of course would be civil war and that’s not something any of us should work towards or even want. Yet it took a civil war to free the slaves (and with all due respect to Catholic Knight, regardless of whether or not that was the original reason for the war), so I think (based on that history alone) one might sadly be required here (please, dear God, no!).

  • Paul and T. Shaw,
    Although I love to use violent metaphors, mostly because it tweaks so many noses out of joint, I am not advocating civil war. I am afraid though, history and culture being what they are in this country, there is a very real possibility of our ” culture war ” turning hot. It is quite evident from the history of radical secularism that the rhetoric eventually turns to action. The secularists preach an intolerant brand of atheistic humanism, which is used in a public way to ostracize and separate the opposition. They have no allies and allow no neutral parties. We as Catholics have a great heritage of facing these kinds of totalitarians and that history can serve us well in dealing with the current crop of tyrannical wanna-bees.

    So I think we should never advocate to initiate violent means as long as so-called civil society is in place ( kind of ). Will we have to face violence in America in our struggle with the culture of death? Yes, I believe we already are, just ask the millions of dead children. The culture of death is not just a metaphor for bad actors misbehaving. It is a description of the enemy. Our weapons are fasting, praying, self-denial and obedience to the Majesterium. We must also fight the good fight in the arena of politics, friends and family. The workplace too is an area where we can bring on the struggle. Every day in every way.

Some People Say That No One Is Pro-Abortion

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

Occasionally pro-aborts make the argument that no one is pro-abortion.  Anglican priestess Katherine Ragsdale is Exhibit A that this is rubbish.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who I have designated Defender of the Faith for his spirited defenses of the Church, at the Midwest Conservative Journal examine Katherine Ragsdale’s views on abortion as a blessing in a post simply entitled “Monster”:

Abortion is a blessing — sometimes a joyful relief; sometimes a painful choice — but a blessing still.

Why is that so hard to see? How can anyone not understand that unless women can control our reproductive lives we can’t control our economic lives either, we can’t be fully functioning members of the commonwealth or stewards of the gifts God has given us unless we can decide when or if to have children?

There is, of course, one simple way around that little problem.  It’s a very old idea that has a number of names.  Keeping your clothes on, locking the barn door, keeping it zipped up, keeping the one-eyed snake in the cage, viewing men/women as human beings rather than ambulatory narcotics, saving yourself for marriage, etc.

I have been stunned, since all the uproar, to hear self-described feminists – feminists – say, “oh, abortion is always a morally complex tragedy but it’s sometimes a necessary evil and so must remain legal.” Is it any surprise that people are becoming less and less willing to call themselves pro-choice if even feminists are lamenting a necessary evil rather than celebrating a means to our own liberation and empowerment? 

“You use the phrase ‘killing every single Jew in the entire world’ like that’s a bad thing.” – Heinrich Himmler.

Look, the only way abortion is a tragedy or an evil is if a fertilized egg is a baby. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that (and they’re entitled to) but science doesn’t, most theologies don’t, and common sense doesn’t. Why should we believe that? Yet every time we called abortion a tragedy we reiterate the position that a zygote is a human being of equal moral standing with a woman. We create an antiabortion climate and I fear it has come back to bite us.

Two things.  Katie Rags was a fertilized egg once.  So was her entire audience and so was every single person reading this.  And as far as Rags is concerned, you’re still a “fertilized egg” nine months after one of your dad’s swimmers made it inside one of your mom’s eggs, as demonstrated by her lionization of Old Partial-Birth Abortion.

It is only this that makes it possible for people to be as outraged as many have been by the characterization of George Tiller as a saint and martyr. Dr. Tiller — like most if not all people who work in clinics that provide abortions — did difficult, demanding, and dangerous work under constant threat, harassment, and terrorism. He did it even though he could make more money doing easier, and certainly safer, work. He did it because he believed it was the right thing to do. It was his ministry. He spent and gave his life on behalf of others. That’s a saint and martyr. The only reason anyone could question that is if they thought abortion was a bad thing. The only way they can think that if they believe a fertilized egg is a baby. And we contribute to that whenever we try to compromise and be conciliatory by calling abortion a tragedy.

Says here that participation in the Einsatzgruppen during the Second World Was was terribly stressful on the German soldiers involved.  But the fact that they needed copious quantities of booze to get through the day didn’t make those bastards virtuous.

Continue reading...

One Response to Some People Say That No One Is Pro-Abortion

Fort Hood Massacre, President Obama, and George Tiller the Killer

Monday, November 9, AD 2009

Isn’t it interesting that President Obama is pleading for us to “not to rush to judgment” concerning the Fort Hood Massacre that was executed by Malik Nidal Hasan who is an extremist Muslim.  Yet President Obama called out the National Guard to protect abortion mills when George Tiller the Killer was killed by a deranged man and not a pro-life advocate?

Double standard you think?

Yeah.  But just remember that this is the same administration that called “right-wing” groups such as pro-lifers as a threat to national security and not one mention of extremist Muslims or Muslim organizations that operate within the United States or abroad.

President Obama and his administration represent a world view that is un-American with values that only Moloch would love.  Catering to the politically correct sympathies and dogmas of modern liberalism while demonizing pro-life organizations that only seek to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Let’s pray for a one term Obama presidency and a strong candidate to emerge to represent the best of most Americans.


To read more about the Fort Hood Massacre click here.

To read more about the murder of George Tiller the Killer click here.

To read more about President Obama demonizing Pro-Lifers the same day that George Tiller the Killer was killed click here.

To read more of the Obama Administration categorizing Pro-Life groups as terrorists click here.

To read more by Ralph Peters of the New York Post on President Obama’s response to the Fort Hood Massacre click here.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Fort Hood Massacre, President Obama, and George Tiller the Killer

  • I agree Tito – the double standard is as blatant as it is ridiculous. The government and the media did nothing as pro-lifers as a whole were vilified by the left.

    We are not a protected group. Neither, for that matter, are innocent unborn children.

  • Agreed, the double standard is absurd. But should we avoid fooling ourselves into thinking that Republicans don’t do the same thing?

  • Let’s not forget how quick Obama was to condemn the Cambridge police in the Gate arrest.

  • Phillip – Also, how long it took him to barely criticize the Iranian elections and subsequent crackdown.

  • According to the NRO, the NY Times has published a piece describing the heroic Michael Mansoor as an example of a patriotic and selfless Muslim serviceman who threw himself on a grenade to save others.

    In its zeal to promote Muslim servicemen, the Times got one little detail wrong – Mansoor was in fact a devout Catholic.

    You can see how such a mistake would happen, given the problems that paper has with the Catholic faith. To their hive minds, devout Catholics = child molesting priests and “anti-choice fanatics”, not heroes, while Muslims are all noble and good.

  • From NRO:

    In this New York Times story on Muslims serving in the U.S. military, the Times presents Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for throwing himself on a grenade to save his team members in 2006, as a Muslim. It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand. But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.

  • Donna V.,

    Could you send me the link? Thanks!

    Joe & Pinky,

    Thank you, it had to be pointed out. It was obvious to me.


    Absolutely agree.

    Arlen Spector, then a Republican, made the remark of how the Catholic Church was intolerant towards science and brought up the Galileo incident. Can’t remember the context of which he spoke about this, so if anyone can remind me what it was it’ll make for a good follow-up article in the future.

  • wow, I just read that Times article. That’s a pretty douche-bag (pardon the language) move by the NYT. Really ticks me off that they were so desperate to find counter examples that they resorted (as usual, i guess) to outright falsehoods for which they will no doubt issue a correction that is hidden away among the folds of a later issue.

    Not to go off-topic, but I recently read a defense of Tiller’s killer somewhere (

    I mean, what does one do when a state-sanctioned serial killer is loose in the world? Isn’t there some context that allows for individual citizens to do something about those people? If there was a known serial killer in public and he had publicly stated his intentions to kill again, is there no recourse for the sane members of society?

    I think I might agree with Gottfried that Tiller’s killing was not necessarily murder. However, his killing will undoubtedly result in harder times for the pro-life movement, but I’m not sure that is enough to make the actual act immoral.

    Tiller had killed some 60 thousand innocent people. I have a hard time believing that tiller’s killer could be guilty of murder.

  • Highly theological, though. probably so much so as to render any treatment of it in this limited space more of a detriment to the understanding of it.

  • Sorry for not posting it earlier, Tito. In the updated version, Mansoor is referred to as a Christian:

    With this added at the end:

    Earlier versions of this article misstated the religion and rank of Michael A. Monsoor and the act he performed that earned him the Medal of Honor.

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

Tuesday, August 4, AD 2009

Ah, it does my heart good to see Senator Arlen Specter (D.Pa) and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services exposed to the verbal anger of the public!  Now why is that?

Well as to Snarlin’ Arlen, he was for decades a pro-abort Republican and now is a pro-abort Democrat.  My reaction when he jumped parties earlier this year was good riddance.  He jumped parties of course because he was an almost certain loser to pro-life Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.  The hilarious thing is that Specter will face a Democrat primary challenge from Congressman Joe Sestak who announced his candidacy yesterday.  If he survives the primary challenge he faces an up-hill fight against Toomey.  In a Quinnipiac poll on July 22, Specter leads Toomey by a single percentage point 45%-44%.  This is a devastating poll for an incumbent facing a well-known challenger.

As for Sebelius, she is a fanatic pro-abort, as I detailed here, and a close political ally of the late Tiller the Killer.  Just before her confirmation it came out that she had received three times the donations from Tiller than she had claimed.    Of course this is only the tip of a large ice berg of campaign funds that Tiller used to aid Sebelius as this letter here from Tiller indicates.  Her ties to Tiller were outlined by Bob Novak last year here. When confronted about Tiller she was always in full ” Tiller?” mode:

Yep, I can watch these two being booed with a fine enjoyment!  Schadenfreude?  Indeed!

Continue reading...

36 Responses to It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

  • I too take some comfort in knowing the likes of Specter and Sebelius are being challenged. However, my real delight was in the substance of those two clips from the town hall meeting. They demonstrate the common sense of the common man, and the futility of trying to stump it. The common man may not be slick or sophisticated like those who desire to lord over them, but he is far wiser because he chooses to deal with reality rather than delude himself.

  • Agreed Rick. This was the classic case of two con artists suddenly learning to their dismay that “the marks” of their con weren’t quite the rubes they thought!

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

  • I’m confused… Your theory is that Donald will burn down the administration and then get himself elected chancellor of the US in a tight three way election?

    Or is it some sort of vague aspersion that although the Democrats may be bad, the Republicans are infinitely worse?

  • It’s funny that MZ is getting his “talking points” from a website where the main contributor (Marshall) in 2005 openly stated that the social security reform package should be “demagogued” to death. So now it’s four years later and suddenly the left is upset about passionate rhetoric and instilling fear as a method of squashing reform. Convenient.

  • That being said, the comparison to Hitler in this context is revolting, but it’s MZ so it’s not surprising that he said something intentionally inflammatory. His hair shirt has to be chafing.

  • I could be wrong, but didn’t M.Z. vote for Obama?

    Also remember that when people start comparing Republicans or Conservatives to anything Nazi or Hitler, that’s a strong indication that they are losing (or have lost) the argument.

  • Oh, I get it… The point is supposed to be that the booing is orchestrated and therefore doesn’t count. (And the Nazis are simply thrown in for extra rhetorical spice.)

    Of course, the booing could be orchestrated. These things happen. Goodness knowns, given the much greater preponderance of bored students on the liberal side of the aisle we’ve been dealing with this for decades. But given that support for the health plan has dropped solidly in the polls, it’s hardly surprising if adverse reactions are seen regardless of whether they’re orchestrated or not.

  • Does that mean we can call liberals communists when they use the same tactics?

  • I thought that’s how you say communist in American?

  • We have no idea whether or not the lady in the audience who spoke up was there to be a disruption or was there due to her own concern. Nothing in what she said would indicate that she was trying to be a trouble maker – unless of course, one considers challenging the wisdom of the ruling elite as being such.

    Oddly enough it was Specter’s own words, voluntarily given, that were damning. Anyone who thinks it is good or appropriate to ram through legislation of such magnitude without studying what effects it may have or to do it so it can’t be scrutinized really has no business making such decisions. Alas, I know we elected them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to keep them in check.

    Personally, I’m suspect of any decision made by someone who would classify abortion as health care. Even if the proposed reform was mostly a good and workable idea, I’d be against it because of the inclusion of abortion. One absolute mandate of the justification of the state is to defend innocent life – not take it. While the state has a duty to the common good, properly understood, forcing people to buy health insurance and creating alternative insurance organizations is not mandatory – especially when the state considers abortion health care and a right and starving the infirm to be a private matter. These moral and intellectual faults make for horrible foundation to build “health care” upon. It is easy to see how euthanasia and the disabled could easily become marginalized by these people.

  • Hey, what ever happened to dissent being patriotic?

  • Phillip,

    It’s ok to dissent if you’re an extremist liberal. It’s not ok if you’re an ordinary American.

  • I encourage people on the Left to engage in the fantasy that these eruptions of citizen rage taking place at townhall meetings are simply the work of some grand right-wing conspiracy. Reassure yourselves that all is well, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are on the right course, and that there is absolutely no chance that in 2010 angry voters will be clambering over each other to register their displeasure at the polls.

  • I seem to remember that just last week at VN they were claiming that conspiracy theories are a characteristic of the right but not the left. Huh.

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

    It’s a bit early in the day for the sauce, MZ.

  • Art Deco,

    M.Z.’s a teetoler, he drinks only Kool-Ade.

  • Donald,

    There is absolutely no chance of any change™ occurring in 2010.

    For example, ACORN at this time are combing cemetery’s to register new voters in order to prevent change™ from happening.

    They’ve even began discrediting Tea Party protesters as ‘right-wing-tea-baggers’ with Janeane Garofalo leading the cheers.

    What next? Cow-towing to dictatorships that imprison innocent Americans such as the two journalists in North Korea or the three hikers in Iran? So we can be sensitive to our enemies, but damn American voters for voicing their disagreement with government run health care?

  • It was a stupid comment, but let’s not go overboard on the inside baseball jibes.

  • I’m actually enjoying all the comments. True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

  • Darwin,

    This gentleman’s explanation you may find more persuasive.

  • Consider it community organizing.

  • True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

    We know, MZ. All those uppity people speaking back to their superiors. They should know better.

  • MZ,

    Not really.


    My apologies. Resume pummelling.

  • On a side note, I’m amused that some on the progressive side are claiming to be shocked (shocked!) that criticisms voiced at “town hall meetings” are not sufficiently learned from their point of view.

    Does anyone really imagine that getting a bunch of random voters to ask politicians questions about a complex and contentious topic will produce learned questions — or answers for that matter? “Town hall” meetings to discuss anything other than how to run a local town are unlikely to result in deep analysis from either the citizens or the politicians involved. To get upset that it’s not your pat and simplistic arguments being aired seems odd.

  • Are you pawning yourself off Paul as the everyman?

  • MZ:

    Yes, MZ. Clearly walking by the SEIU headquarters every day on my lunch break is finally getting to me.

  • The rift between the common people and the know-it-all’s widens…

  • From the comment MZ linked to:

    “These town hall shut downs have been orchestrated by the same Washington lobbying firm that was behind the tea parties. I assume those of who who don’t depend on Fox know that by now.”

    I rejoice that such a complete misreading of the current situation is what passes for analysis on the Left. Of course the proposals of Obama and the Democrats in Congress can’t really be unpopular with the public; this all has to be orchestrated by a sinister right wing cabal.

  • Hillary Clinton nailed it over 15 years ago as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” Donald.

    Why people are incapable of making up their own minds without help from “others”.

    Frankly, if this is what the White House offers as an objective analysis, then President Obama is in for a real awakening come 2010.

  • Hmmm Republicans lead by 5 points on the Rasmussen generic Congressional ballot:

    “Support for Republican congressional candidates has risen to its highest level in recent years, giving the GOP a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest Congressional Ballot and stretching the out-of-power party’s lead to six weeks in a row.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

    Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead on the ballot for the first few weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the two political parties were roughly even. Republicans have held a lead on the ballot since the last week in June, the first time they’d been on top in well over a year.

    Women who have consistently favored Democrats now prefer the GOP by a 40% to 39% margin. Men continue to favor Republicans over Democrats 47% to 36%.

    Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one – 43% to 22%.”

    Well Rasmussen must obviously be in the pay of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Of course that doesn’t explain why NPR shows Republicans ahead on their generic Congressional ballot poll by one point. Even the full mooners of the Left will have some difficulty portraying National Public Radio as in any sense right-wing.

    There is a long way to go of course until November 2010, but this is a crucial time for recruiting candidates and raising war chests, and this type of news gives a big boost to the GOP and a big problem for the Democrats.

  • Oh, I’m sure Toomey’s campaign manager danced a jig around the office when he (or she) saw that clip. PA voters are going to see the sound bite helpfully provided by Arlen “I don’t actually read the bills” Spector over and over in the fall.

    Look, in your own personal life you know you’re a darn fool if you don’t bother to read important documents you put your name to, whether they’re mortgages, leases, wills, insurance policies or what have you. Every responsible adult understands that what’s in the fine print might come back to bite you. And yet we have the surreal spectacle of our lawmakers pushing for a momentous change – and yet they haven’t even read the bill (or else it hasn’t been written yet, so they don’t know the specifics.) And yet we’re just supposed to trust them to do the right thing? This is ridiculous.

  • Pingback: Sebelius and Specter Respond « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens “Well Dressed Nazi’s”? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: We Are Americans, Not Europeans « The American Catholic

Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

Obama Speak

The White House issued a statement that bordered on the polemic from President Obama that ratcheted up the rhetoric surrounding the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller [emphasis mine]:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion [notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us], they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Such partisan rhetoric is unbecoming of the office of the President.  Especially when preliminary reports show that the suspect has no connections with any pro-life groups.  In fact, Scott Roeder, the alleged suspect, is connected to various anti-government groups.  This only shows President Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame of ‘not demonizing the opponent‘ as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

This type of rhetoric has only emboldened anti-life groups to capitalize on the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller.  The pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) has already deemed it a “terrorist” act and wants stalinist tactics used on Pro-Life groups by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to:

Continue reading...

43 Responses to Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

  • Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

  • Pingback: President Obama Did Not Demonize The Pro-Life Movement. « Vox Nova
  • Comments are now reopened on this thread. Good post Tito. Here is more from the Attorney General:

    “Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.”

    That last sentence is intriguing. I wonder just what these “appropriate steps” will be.

  • No President Obama, whatever “moral” standing you have will quickly diminish if you go down this road of demonizing an entire sector of Americans by what in preliminary accounts looks like the lonely act of an anti-government anarchist.

    What about your demonization of “anarchists” in this sentence?

  • When there is violence, appropriate steps is to see what caused it, and what one can do to fix the problems which caused it. President Obama’s words were not against the pro-life movement, but against a group of people who claim to be pro-life, but show no understanding of the sacredness of life, that they are willing to do the unthinkable and take a life themselves. The two acts are linked. And one of the causes is the rhetoric within the pro-life movement which focuses only on abortion, and ignores the real pro-life stand which honors all life, even of those people we find to be monstrous. And nothing in this, nor what the Department of Justice said, indicates all pro-lifers will be profiled. But if you keep doing posts like this, you might just get what you want.

  • Thanks for the warning Karlson. If the Obama administration ever would be foolish enough to attempt to strong arm the pro-life movement, something I think is close to nil in probability, I have no doubt you would be using your best efforts to assist them.

  • This is Obama’s Oklahoma City bombing.

  • Steve

    Save it appears this has been a concern and worked out long before Obama was in office, as one can see with what he posted on the Operation Rescue website two years ago. In other words, it should be a wake up call for the pro-life movement, instead of being used as another reason to make Obama into the bogeyman.

  • Tiller’s murderer is pro-choice. That he is only a recent convert to the culture of death in no way invalidates the proper attribution of his worldview. Like any pro-abort, he made that “heart-wrenching” decision to reduce a human life to a problem to be solved by killing. He should face the full force of the criminal justice system.

    This incident is instructive, however, as the President’s speech at Notre Dame calling for the two sides not to “demonize” each other is quickly shown to be empty rhetoric, as he and all his supporters leap to the demonization of Christians and pro-lifers. Gone is the language of “human-caused tragedy”, gone the urgings not to “tar the whole group with the actions of one,” gone the calls to “understand the root causes of this crime”.

    For those who have so long hated the pro-life movement, the martyrdom of George Tiller is an occasion of great rejoicing.

  • To suggest that Obama’s response is not an attack on the pro-life movement is absurd. This is ONE murder of a particularly controversial individual who is clearly outside of the mainstream abortionist. There has been a grand total 4 abortionists murdered in the US. A federal response of any sort in this kind of isolated case is with no indications of an ongoing threat is unprecedented and only being done because it is an “opportunity” (remember Rules for Radicals and Rahm Emmanuel’s reference to using a crisis as an opportunity).

  • Mr. Karlson,

    How is this a wake-up call to the pro-life movement? I lead a small, humble local pro-life organization with nearly 1,000 members. If this is a wake-up call, what should my response be? To scour the internet looking for individuals with no affiliation with me or my group and ensure they aren’t planning any vigilante activities?

    Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

  • Just listened to NPR’s report (the left’s equivalent of Fox News.) No effort to investigate whether the shooter was tied to the pro-life movement or not. Lots of pro-abortion voices making Tiller out to be a martyr for compassion and women. Yes this will be used for more left-hate disguised as “protection” for the right to choose.

  • Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

    A perfect response to those who would use this incident as an occasion for bigotry.

  • Wrote my comment before farandaddy’s hate speech. Perhaps its that he can’t read the comments on other posts decrying the murder as contrary to the Faith.

  • Steve

    If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals. That’s the thing. It should wake us up, to remind us how we are to consider ALL life as sacred. ALL. When we find ways to get around that, we begin to move away from a pro-life stand.

  • farandaday,

    An opportunity to read as well as listen. Here from American Life League opposing the killing of Tiller:

    Also many other such statements from pro-life organizations. Perhaps if you wish not to be blind and read such statements. Perhaps. Perhaps…

  • I try to get along with everyone and none of us like to dictate to others. I am very pro-life and some people come up with the choice argument. And then, I’m pro-marriage between a man and a woman. These are my views but in the real world, it’s like our foes would accuse us of “ordering people around” which I don’t like to do.

    The struggle for the life rights of all has really come to the forefront and the “pro-life” issue takes precedent over anything with me.

  • The diarist wrote: notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us.

    Hmmm. Roeder had been shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist, his clinic had been bombed – repeatedy, he had received more death threats than he could count, his clinic had been blockaded by activists, vandals had cut wires to security cameras and made holes in his roof, and his home was constantly picketed. The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    This is just stuff I gleaned from 10 minutes of newspaper reader. I imagine the President knows a little more.

    But, really, why would anyone just “assume” the killer was an anti-abortionist?!

  • I hope the guy isn’t a Catholic. Let’s hope no one that has not fallen away from the Holy Mother Church would do such. Of course, I would hope no one would do such in the first place. As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.

  • I’m sorry, Tom, are you condoning this killer’s actions?

    “As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.”

  • If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals.

    Describing something one believes to be evil is always going to involve a certain amount of strength of language.

    Peace advocates use _very_ strong language in denouncing the actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seldom worry that they are encouraging violent militants to kill US soldiers.

    Anti-globalization efforts use strong language to denounce business and global poverty, yet seldom worry much about the violence that springs up at G8 meetings and other similar protest events, much less more widescale violence in developing countries.

    I certainly do not endorse bringing self-consciously violent rhetoric into a debate needlessly, but it would be absolutely wrong for pro-lifers not to state clearly that they believe abortion to be the murder of an innocent human being. To elide that would be to ignore the injustice going on.

    What would be next? Should lynchings be timidly denounced as “mildly impolite” lest someone be encouraged to kill white supremacists?

  • Viona,

    it’s apparent that you read comments on this blog with about as much skill as you read the newspapers… which is really none at all.

    The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor

    this not in fact true nor has it really been reported. He is a well known anti-government activist, no substantial involvement in the pro-life movement has been uncovered.

    and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    By your standards of evidence, you are a pro-life Catholic since you’re posting on this blog.

  • Viona Walsch: Of course not.

    Such things as the Mexico City policy which would fund abortions in foreign countries is of the utmost repugnant nature. That is carrying this evil into other countries, maybe paying for it with our tax dollars. That is evil. That is tyrannical.

    Abortions is big business at operations at $5000 dollar a pop and Tiller conducted over 4000 of these. Doesn’t exactly put him in the poor house.

  • Viona,

    To say that Roeder is reflective (or even part of) the pro-life movement is the same as saying this is reflective of the anti-war movement:

  • Viona Walsch, are you saying we are not free to call unjust acts that??? Just as the killing of Tiller is unjust and may be the tyranny of one man’s mind as other assassinations have been, what about acts our government might do that we disagree with? I know plenty of anti-war people, even some elderly ladies that would go to our Adoration Chapel.

    But this is from the Jerusalem Post:

    “Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman’s “right to choose;” it attacks a living baby’s right to life. His position is not simply “pro-choice;” it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a “uniter” would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies? ”

    This is silly to say, just because one says someone’s stance is wrong, that they support the alternative. Are we suppose to agree with the government in such wrongs?? Clearly, even most abortion supporters see the line should be drawn at the birth of a child.

  • This is utter stupidity. There were 300,000 pro-life marchers in Washington DC this year. If this man was reflective of the pro-life movement there would be NO ABORTION DOCTORS OR CLINICS LEFT. Period.

    In reality, the pro-life movement is the most peaceful movement in HISTORY. Far more were killed by anti-slavery, and civil rights actions than the stunning total of 4 abortion doctors killed.

  • Viona,
    Your question to Tom immediately after a rather plain English post is really quite breathtaking. It is plain as day that Tom was saying that both the US legal treatment of abortion and the murder of Tiller are evil. Do you somehow see those two things as incompatable? Honestly, I am confused by your question. Am I wrong to take it as a serious one?

  • I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is perfectly okay to express your repugnance with abortion in all forms. That is your absolute constitutional right. I do find some of the ugly comments by people (a woman named Rhonda on this site said she was relieved when she heard Dr. Tillman was killed)sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    I didn’t say that Roeder’s actions were reflective of the anti-abortion movement. On the contrary. I think there is a radical fringe element who will blockade clinics, harass workers and their families. Obviously far fewer will take it to the ultimate extreme. But in any “movement” you will find all degrees of commitment and extremes.

    Denying that Roeder was part of the larger movement is disingenuous.

  • Just to slap all the cards on the table, you are much more a part of the “larger movement” which supports this practice, Ms. Walsch:

    As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Id., at 61. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. Ibid. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or “drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.” Id., at 62. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. Id., at 63. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, … the fetus [is] alive.” Id., at 62. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” id., at 64, and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” Id., at 63. At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.” Id., at 125.

  • Viona,

    sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    advocating the legal murder of the unborn regardless of “disabilities” is even more unbecoming of our Faith. Though they are immoral, the comments are legal.

  • Mr. Karlson,

    I guess it depends. If you’re arguing that pro-lifer activists shouldn’t incite violence toward abortionists, then you’re constructing a straw man since no credible group (certainly not the movement as a whole as you alleged in your first post) has done so.

    If you’re saying that we need to apologize for our stance by not saying that abortion is murder, then you are suggesting we deny the truth for the sake of political expediency and getting along.

    Christ did no such thing. He used sharp words when nececessary, even if he did it lovingly. The pro-life movement does the same thing. If we aren’t willing to call abortion murder, we have no grounds for opposing it. Arguing that abortion hurts women, that it’s lucrative, that it’s exploitative are all good and important. But unless we condemn it as murder, we have no leg to stand on.

    Let’s be clear here about pro-life activism: Any tactic that is licit is valid. But there must also be no small amount of prayer and discernment, particularly with a spiritual director. There is a rightful place for soft language, hard language, graphic images, silent prayer, and the whole range of licit responses. I pray that we might be given the gift of discernment to know when each response is appropriate.

  • Viona,

    Let’s get one thing straight here. If blockading clinic entrances is an unjust, illicit act, then so were civil rights sit ins in the 1960s. Putting one’s body in between a murderer and his intended victim is an act of love and bravery.

    The rest of your allegations are purposely vague. Anytime the words intimidating, threatening, harrassing are used, I get suspicious. Our pro-life Rosaries have been called all of those things. If we really were intimidating, threatening, or harrassing people, they would come out and say what our crimes really were. or something to that effect. Instead, whenever they don’t like our presence, they attach a vague, unfalsifiable and dishonest adjective.

  • Violence may beget violence. Has anyone heard this story coming out of Arkansas.

    So this is early in the story, but do we assume this is an anti-war act and so all other anti-war protesters are of this terrorist extremist type?

    “Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center
    Monday, June 01, 2009

    A gunman opened fire Monday at an army recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark., killing one army recruiter and seriously wounding another, reported.

    A man in a black SUV drove to the recruitment office and began shooting at around 10:19 a.m., a spokesman with the Little Rock police department told FOX News.

    The suspect, who immediately fled the scene, was later apprehended approximately four miles from the center with an assault rifle in his vehicle.”

  • Oh, again, I pray for the poor soul and their friends and family who have lost life in this needless act. May God have mercy on us all and forgive us our trespasses.

    I hope we aren’t getting into an eye for eye as might happen.

  • Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center

    are all soldiers now going to get security provided by the US Marshal service??? Or just the recruiters?

  • Placing U.S. Marshals is an overreaction to say the least. President Obama, like Rahm Emmanuel says, will not miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.

  • Matt,

    I just realized you wrote a similar thing.

    Catholic Anarchist,

    Since when do “anarchists” have a positive connotation?

  • Tito on the mark. This White House will take advantage of a crisis, such as it is. Been wondering for years if Powers That Be, now in charge at White House, will finally, once and for all, attempt to drive the pro-life movement off the map. In turn, a serious persecution of its most prominent bloc, our own One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Scratch many hardcore libs and you will find serious anti-Catholic bias. As for the Arkansas murder case, MSM may flip and go Eye For An Eye. Then twist its logic in returning to coverage of Tiller’s murder. (Not that I am the least bit concerned about respectability in their eyes. We tried as much since 2nd Vatican Council. No go.) Meanwhile, be prepared for rough times. Some may suffer for the sake of the Gospel. We may be at that point.

  • Gerard E.,

    I agree.

    We need to pray for Tiller and those that demonize us that they may see the light and understand the undue harm their stance does.

  • Pingback: Anthony
  • I find this article to be demonizing President Obama. He made remarks condeming a murder, and you have taken offense and twisted it to where your group becomes the victim? On some level, you are showing support for this murder by minimizing it and trying to seek political gain for your own cause. We as Christians will never be taken seriously until we respect all life, not just the ones we like or agree with!

  • Rubbish. It is rather Obama who has who has sought political advantage from acts of horrific violence perpretrated against children in the womb. Here is a fund raising letter sent out in which his wife trumpeted his opposition to partial birth abortion.

    Pro-lifers condemned the murder of Tiller. If only Obama would also condemn the slaying of the unborn, instead of upholding abortion as a right.

  • Pingback: Divider-in-Chief Obama Complains of “Tearing Each Other Down,” While Disparagingly Calling Opponents “Teabaggers,” Amid 2009 Obama Site Calling Opponents “Right Wing Domestic Terrorists…Suberting the American Democratic

Scott Roeder, No Connection With Pro-Life Groups

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

Scott Roeder anarchist arrested

Preliminary reports show no connection of Scott Roeder with any Pro-Life groups. editor Steven Ertelt has reported that Scott Roeder, who has been detained by police in relation to the shooting of the abortionist George Tiller, has affiliations with extremist anarchist political groups with an anti-government bent.

As has been the case with most previous incidents of abortion-related violence, Roeder appears to have an affiliation with extremist political groups but not with the mainstream pro-life movement.

Pro-life groups have quickly and genuinely condemned the Tiller shooting.

We here at the American Catholic have condemned this act of violence.

Early reports so far show Scott Roeder having connections with anti-government organizations such as Freemen as well as having a prior conviction of ‘Criminal use of firearms’ in 1996.

(Photo of video taken from Kansas City Fox 4)

(Biretta Tips: Tom Blumer, The ConservativeXpress, & Foxfier)

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Scott Roeder, No Connection With Pro-Life Groups

  • I’m glad to hear that you want no connection with a man who just shot someone in their church. I wish you would go a step further and declare the man’s action an act of terror.

  • rationalpsychic –
    without knowing his motives, that’d be almost as premature as…well, most main-stream declarations have been so far.

    It’s murder, for the Nth time– and we’re not going to let folks forget that.

    Seeing as there was no published pre-statement of intent to kill abortionists, nor a later statement of a “there’s more where that came from!” type, calling it an act of terror is… premature.

  • Pingback: Obama’s Reckless Rhetoric On Tiller’s Death « The American Catholic
  • Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

  • Comments are now reopened on this thread.


    He most certainly had anti-abortion connections, though I would agree that doesn’t make him pro-life.

  • HK,

    What is worse is this comment by Roeder just two years ago on Operation Rescue’s website via the Google Cache in which he suggests going to Tiller’s Church

    So, anyone who posts a comment on a pro-life group’s board has “anti-abortion connections”?

    That’s an absurd leap.

  • Do you know what the word “connection” means, Matt? Did you read his words? It’s clearly he had anti-abortion connections (I didn’t say he was pro-life, since he is not; but many who are anti-abortion are not pro-life). Nonetheless his words show his concern with abortion and thanked the prayer work against Tiller (for Tiller’s abortion work). So yes, within Scott’s mind, abortion was an issue. Was it the only one? No. But it doesn’t have to be for it to be a piece of the puzzle.

  • The post pertained to organizing events at Tiller’s church (which were already going on, but Roeder suggested going inside). It plainly indicated that he participated in the rallies that were already ongoing.

  • Dan,

    oh, so showing up at a rally is a “anti-abortion connection”? So if I show up at an Obama rally that gives me “Obama connections”???


  • Matt,

    I always knew you were a secret Obama support.

  • That should be “supporter.” See how much you have upset me!

  • Phillip,

    I’m busted!

  • From the Kansas Fox network:

    “Court records and Internet postings show that a man named Scott Roeder has a criminal record and a background of anti-abortion postings on sympathetic Web sites.

    Witnesses at the Wichita church where Dr. Tiller was shot got a good look at the gunman and the car taking off moment later.

    Police stopped that car Sunday afternoon just outside the metro traveling north on I-35 near the Gardner exit. FOX 4 was there and got exclusive video of Roeder in the backseat of a patrol car. Later in the day, Roeder was taken by Wichita Police from the adult detention facility in Gardner.

    Wichita Police are also towing the blue Taurus back to Wichita.

    Neighbors said they’ve seen a similar car at the house in Merriam. They describe the ongoings at the house as strange. They said it’s a revolving door of men coming and staying there and describe what appear to be religious gatherings.

    There were a number of agents and officers at the home for several hours Sunday afternoon. The FBI say the investigation could go on for several days.”

  • Viona-
    there are two posts, from two years back, which are labeled “Scott Roeder.” No way to know if it’s the same guy, and two postings is hardly proof– shoot, we have trolls that say more outrageous things more often than that!

  • Foxfier: This from the Washington Post:

    “As news of Roeder’s arrest traveled, Kansas City activist Regina Dinwiddie remembered the day a dozen years ago when Roeder hugged her in glee after trying to frighten an abortion provider by staring him down inside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

    “He grabbed me and said, ‘I’ve read the Defensive Action Statement and I love what you’re doing,’ ” Dinwiddie said in a telephone interview. She was a signer of the 1990s statement, which declares that the use of force is justified.”

    You might want to disassociate yourself Roeder, and perhaps you can personally, but there is no question that he is part of the radical anti-abortion movement.

  • day a dozen years ago

    Are you kidding me? It would have to be the first part of 97, if the woman is remembering correctly, since the guy went to jail (for a year and a half) for that bomb in the second half of 97. You know, crazy separatists movement? Tax resistors? Down with The Man, man?

    Think that he was in the middle of a big “protest” of the gov’t might’ve had something to do with how much he adored the idea of killing unarmed folks in “defense”?

    This is right up there with folks trying to pin Eric Rudolph on the Army, or McVeigh and Nichols on Christians.

  • You know some rotten spy is probably reporting everything said here with glee too.

    Guess I’ll expect to find myself on the “no fly” list because I didn’t express immediate anguish yesterday.

    I hear Uruguay is nice this time of year….

  • Argentina for me Joe! Buenos Aires is always lovely!

  • “No connection with pro-life groups?” Are you KIDDING me?
    Have you heard of Operation Rescue? (By the way, their website is off-line — GUESS WHY!!!)
    Go ahead and espouse your beliefs all you want — but don’t tell lies. It just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.

  • Jafsie,

    “No connection with pro-life groups?” Are you KIDDING me?
    Have you heard of Operation Rescue? (By the way, their website is off-line — GUESS WHY!!!)
    Go ahead and espouse your beliefs all you want — but don’t tell lies. It just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.

    so, since you’re posting on a pro-life Catholic website, are you a pro-life Catholic? Stop the lies!

  • Costa Rica.

  • No doubt Roeder would define himself as conservative, not a radical. Recently conservative leaders have been making calls for violent action. Michelle Bachmann called for people to be “armed and dangerous” and called for revolution. She only toned down her rhetoric after being criticized. Also, there are a lot of preachers out their who define themselves as conservative and say God is going to judge us for allowing abortion. Put the rhetoric together and is it any wonder people like Roeder come to violent conclusions?

  • Problem with trying to drag “recent” things into it, Bart– this guy has been a violent nut for over fifteen years.

  • …if he’s animated about anything its that he is an anarchist who hates the government.

  • uh-oh. Now those of us who lean anti-government are going to take the hit!

    Oh wellz.

  • …extreme anti-government. As in the Montana Freemen Militia.

  • How about if we all address the fact that those of us who blog are guilty at some time or another of reducing those who disagree with us to objects or the enemy. I try not to do it but can think of times when I let my anger get the better of me. Then there’s the whole polarization of conservative and liberal in this country. Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males. When reduce others to being less than human, we take a step towards sanctioning violence toward others. Whether it’s ourselves or the cause we sometimes see these as a good worth hurting or killing for.

  • Just about every issue-oriented movement uses heated rhetoric at times. It is hardly exclusive to the pro-life movement.

    Environmentalists paint apocalyptic pictures of the future (rising sea levels, mass starvation, widespread desertification, etc.) almost or just as frightening as anything in the Book of Revelation, and say this is what will happen if global warming, population growth, deforestation, etc. is not stopped.

    Gun rights groups AND gun control groups both paint pictures of the violent, lawless, Wild West-type societies that will result if their policies are not adopted, or that already exist because they have not been adopted. (I’m sure that somewhere on the blogs, Tiller’s murder has also turned into a debate about gun control.)

    So if some nut “comes to violent conclusions” because of THEIR rhetoric, are they to blame?

  • I also agree with rationalpsychic’s comments about blogs. People are always saying things on blogs they would never say in person, and reducing many issues to extremely simplistic talking points.

  • rationalpsychic,

    How about if we all address the fact that those of us who blog are guilty at some time or another of reducing those who disagree with us to objects or the enemy. I try not to do it but can think of times when I let my anger get the better of me. Then there’s the whole polarization of conservative and liberal in this country. Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males. When reduce others to being less than human, we take a step towards sanctioning violence toward others. Whether it’s ourselves or the cause we sometimes see these as a good worth hurting or killing for.

    you might have a valid point if your statement here was true. Because what you’re saying is false, you are actually doing precisely what you accuse Limbaugh and others of doing. What Sotomayor ACTUALLY said was:

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    Now, as a judge she is supposed to make decisions not based on her race or her experiences but based on the FACTS of the case and the LAW as written. Period.

  • “Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males.”

    When did she say this? I know she said her experiences as a Latina woman should help her make better decisions than a White male.

One Response to Tiller the Killer Goes on Trial

  • Don, you have dug out one of the factors that will bring revulsion and ickiness to the abort industry. Not just that Tiller The Killer is on trial. But also one of his prime specialties- abortions for underage females due to pressure from their older boyfriends. Let the feminists wiggle out of that little trap. Let a few of these girls cry on Oprah’s couch or get special treatment on a newsmagzine program. Then the whole It’s My Body issue gets turned inside out. Not to mention how the T-Man operates during the trial. Whether ideology will get in the way of a likely long prison sentence. And no Kitty Kat Sibelius or other highly-place lib to bail him out this time. I could complain about the highly biased AP story- biased toward Georgie- that made the rounds over the weekend. But people have better things to do and it hides in plain sight. Have fun, Georgie. Be nice to large men named Bubba in the slammer.

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

Wednesday, March 4, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Due to popular acclamation I’m returning back to using Latin in my column title (mostly).  I think I’ve settled on a format so thanks for bearing with me.  I’ve wanted to do this type of column for a while and I believe I found the right balance, now if I can only be consistent in my posting.  So here we have today’s Top Seven Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Catholic News Agency has reported that a coalition of American Catholics calling themselves Catholic Advocate led by Deal W. Hudson have created a website opposing President Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, pro-abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  The website is called  Governor Kathleen Sebelius is a dissident Catholic notorious for her direct and explicit support of abortionist George Tiller “the Killer”, whose known for executing late term abortions of innocent children.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has met and counseled Governor Kathleen Sebelius on several occasions on her pro-abortion stance and has asked her to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.  However Governor Kathleen Sebelius has refused to obey and has openly opposed the good archbishop on these points.  Here is the link:

2. Kevin Knight (of New Advent) somehow found a little blurb buried in a long article that Newt Gingrich will soon convert to the Catholic faith as reported by the New York Times (7th paragraph on page 7 of the article ‘Newt. Again.’).

Updated: For a quick and eas(ier) read of the NY Times article go to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s blog here:

3. When I click on my browser to go to their web page takes quite a long time to download relative to any other Catholic website or blog that I surf.  I don’t know if it’s all the links or dense code, but my best guess is that their Content Management System that they ar using, Joomla, may be the cause of the slowdown.  The second longest page in the Catholic web to download is Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke, but you place the blame of the downloading delay to his employer London’s Daily Telegraph (which is the best english language newspaper in the world in my humble opinion).

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

  • So good news all around in spite of the lingering chest cold that I expected to lick Tuesday but caused me 1.5 hours of sleep and more time off Wednesday. catholicsagainstsibelius is good stuff. Best to remind our pro-abort friends and family- so you support someone who has a good friend generally known as Tiller The Killer? Her Jeremiah Wright, so to speak? Meanwhile, delighted to see news that Newt is swimming the Tiber. Always thought he was at least three to five years ahead of his time and that politics was too confining for his talents. Perhaps more like him will do the backstroke as well. Meanwhile let’s make life really miserable for La Sibelius. Might as well find some fun in these difficult times. Kaff, kaff.

  • I think Newt is sincere in his conversion.

    I also believe that he is probably the best man out there to represent the Republican party come 2012. He carries the baggage of leaving his 2nd wife while she was on her deathbed, but he has sincerely apologized for that. He certainly seems to have matured a lot since his days as Speaker of the House.

    I have a feeling that he is prepping for a run. But it’s only a feeling.

Sebelius for HHS-Fitting

Monday, March 2, AD 2009


Hattip to Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia who has done yeoman work in keeping his eye on Sebelius.  It is fitting that President Obama, the most pro-abort president in our nation’s history, has nominated for Secretary of  Health and Human Services, the most pro-abort governor in our nation, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Sebelius for HHS-Fitting