Laura Ingraham explains the situation about Notre Dame

22 Comments

1. Irenaeus says:

   31 March 2009 at 3:59 PM

   I love Laura! She tells it like it is.
2. Corleone says:

   31 March 2009 at 4:14 PM

   Yes…from the mouth of converts. Laura is probably my favourite commentary-media personality. And she has never stooped to the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh (or Moor and Frankin on the other end of the spectrum) in compromising her faith in the quest for ratings and sensationalism through unchristian behavior.
3. Sam says:

   31 March 2009 at 5:17 PM

   Wouldn’t this whole situation be akin to Planned Parenthood giving an honorary award to James Dobson for his work promoting family values? Its simply unthinkable, and yet Notre Dame has chosen popularity over principle.
4. TJM says:

   31 March 2009 at 5:25 PM

   I like Laura’s style. She’s generally well prepared and firm in her positions without the nastiness. Tom
5. Supertradmom says:

   31 March 2009 at 5:56 PM

   Thanks for posting this. We do not have t.v. and I forget sometimes to check out the online t.v. spots, except for Glenn Beck.
6. Allan says:

   31 March 2009 at 6:17 PM

   May she and Pope Benedict XVI live 100 years. We are in desperate need for solid Catholics like this, both in this clountry and in the church.

   Oremus
7. Joe says:

   31 March 2009 at 6:51 PM

   A Catholic institution is completely conformed to Church teaching, which is a lot simpler than conservatism (whatever the heck conservatism is).

   I hope one day Laura Ingraham leaves the phony Left/Right opposition mentality. No progress is being made by supporting the Republican party. It was Republican Justices who upheld Roe V Wade in the first place, and Bush appointees who upheld it again at the beginning of the 90s.

   I’m leaving the party. I regret having voted for McCain who was not fully pro-life. When the party picks Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Obama in 2012, the rest of you “conservative Republicans” will see my point of view a little better. American politics is so Satanic I’m not sure the country will survive this century. We’ll probably split up.
8. TJM says:

   31 March 2009 at 7:24 PM

   Joe,

   No progress? Well under Republican Presidents there was an executive order forbidding federal funding on abortion and embryonic stem cell research – both of which have been reversed by Obama, the fake Catholics hero. Moreover, which president was it that vetoed the partial birth abortion passed by a Republican congress, let me think. Oh, it was Democrat Bill Clintoon. It’s not all Republicans would wish for but at least their record is better than the babykiller Democrats.

   Roe v Wade was issued in 1974 when abortion was not even on the federal radar screen. This decision caught a lot of jurists and politicians flat-footed.

   Tom
9. Subvet says:

   31 March 2009 at 8:37 PM

   “When the party picks Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Obama in 2012,…”

   Not to knowledgable about the laws governing Presidential candidates, are we? Arnie can’t run because he wasn’t born a US citizen.

   Try again.
10. Carlos says:

    31 March 2009 at 8:42 PM

    I think Laura G. is great, she never backs down when it comes to defend
    her Catholic faith and her values. I hardly ever miss her am radio program.

    As for the whole Notre Dame situation here is a link to an article and
    a video of a very good debate between Fr. Morris and Phil Donohue.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/03/57_notre_dame_g.html#more

    Father Morris takes Donohue to the woodshed.
11. Joe says:

    31 March 2009 at 9:14 PM

    “Not to knowledgable about the laws governing Presidential candidates, are we? Arnie can’t run because he wasn’t born a US citizen.

    Try again.”

    You think anybody cares about the law anymore in those circles? Get real.
12. Joe says:

    31 March 2009 at 9:20 PM

    “No progress? Well under Republican Presidents there was an executive order forbidding federal funding on abortion and embryonic stem cell research – both of which have been reversed by Obama, the fake Catholics hero. Moreover, which president was it that vetoed the partial birth abortion passed by a Republican congress, let me think. Oh, it was Democrat Bill Clintoon. It’s not all Republicans would wish for but at least their record is better than the babykiller Democrats.

    Roe v Wade was issued in 1974 when abortion was not even on the federal radar screen. This decision caught a lot of jurists and politicians flat-footed.

    Tom”

    A lot of progress? You call banning partial birth abortion progress? It was like saying its okay to murder someone as long as we can\’t see the actual deed very well. Give me a break.

    Roe V Wade did not take jurists and politicians flat-footed. Just read and listen to the oral arguments in that case. They all knew precisely what was being decided, both those for and against the positive ruling.
13. Lisa Krempasky says:

    31 March 2009 at 10:38 PM

    Laura is absolutely right. Notre Dame is a CATHOLIC university. It must uphold Catholic doctrine. It is awarding a coveting honor on someone who spits on things catholics hold dear. This is soooo very wrong.
14. Mike says:

    1 April 2009 at 1:39 AM

    Obama is not a Natural born citizen his father was a Kenyan citizen /British citizen when baby Obama was born. By the way he also hasn’t shown is legal long form birth certificate. Who knows if he was even born on US soil. If one believes these things you are called a racist or crazy birther. Don’t beleive me just do the research yourself. Wake up but it is probably too late.
15. Corleone says:

    1 April 2009 at 4:23 AM

    Joe – as a registered Republican and constituent of “Arnie the Governator” I can absolutely understand your frustration. That being said, I have never been one to vote for the party, but rather for the individual. I voted for Buchanon back in 2000 because he was a solidly Catholic candidate, even though many Republican friends of mine whined how I was “giving my vote to Gore” (to which I responded that I am in California, so the electoral college has already given my vote to him before I cast my ballot). And while the Republican party is no better than the Democratic party when it comes to putting forth candidates who are pro-abortion and contrary to other church ideals, at this point in time it is also the party which seems to have MORE pro-life candidates and MORE people which care about church teaching.

    If there were a viable pro-life Catholic Democrat running in any race, I wouldn’t hesitate to consider or vote for that person. But they are so few and far between these days, which is why I still tend to vote for the Republican candidate (note: not the party- the individual). I guess all I can say is go ahead and do what is best for your conscience in this matter.
16. Shane O'Neill says:

    1 April 2009 at 5:56 AM

    Joe and Corleone, your words are refereshing. Over here I vote for a left-wing politician who is staunchly opposed to abortion. I’m not a socialist in the orthodox sense, but I am quite a big fan of old-style Labour policies. It shocks me to see how partisan America has become. There’s probably a lot of pro-lifers out there who vote Republican solely for the abortion issue, but who feel no affinity for their neo-con foreign policies or their liberal economics.
17. RBrown says:

    1 April 2009 at 7:54 AM

    Obama is not a Natural born citizen his father was a Kenyan citizen /British citizen when baby Obama was born. By the way he also hasn’t shown is legal long form birth certificate. Who knows if he was even born on US soil. If one believes these things you are called a racist or crazy birther. Don’t beleive me just do the research yourself. Wake up but it is probably too late.
    Comment by Mike

    It has not been decided what the Constitution means by “natural born” citizen. Although the US grants automatic citizenship under both ius sanguinis and ius solis, at the time of the Constitution convention, there were obviously no candidates who could be considered citizens via ius sanguinis.

    I think that generally “natural born” has referred to those who are not naturalized citizens.

    If “natural born” refers only to ius solis, then John McCain would also not be “natural born”. MCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and those born there from non US citizens are not considered citizens via ius solis.
18. RBrown says:

    1 April 2009 at 8:03 AM

    A lot of progress? You call banning partial birth abortion progress? It was like saying its okay to murder someone as long as we can’t see the actual deed very well. Give me a break.

    Obviously, the Repubs are not perfect on abortion, but their record is much better than the Dems. The Dem party is officially pro abortion, and the Repub anti abortion.

    Since 1973 every Dem nominee for SCOTUS has opposed overturning Roe.

    Roe V Wade did not take jurists and politicians flat-footed. Just read and listen to the oral arguments in that case. They all knew precisely what was being decided, both those for and against the positive ruling.
    Comment by Joe

    The oral arguments aren\’t necessarily an indicator of all politicians and jurists. In the few years before Roe the abortion question was being dealt with by state legislatures.
19. Father Totton says:

    1 April 2009 at 9:42 AM

    Carlos,

    I am sorry I followed the link you posted. Phil Donahue has really upset me this morning. I felt like hurling my coffee cup at the screen, but then realized it would only bounce off the flat screen and not have the intended effect (CRT was good for something!) AAARRRGHHH! How maddening!
20. CARLOS says:

    1 April 2009 at 10:54 AM

    Dear Father Totton,

    I can see how Phil Donohue would anger you but that is to be expected to
    Mr. Donohue loves going against the Church, to put it mildly. On the other
    hand you have to agree that for all the hot air that came out of Mr. Donohue’s
    mouth Fr. Morris exposed him for what he is. Father Morris pointed out that
    Mr. Donohue could not defend the core argument and even after that being
    pointed out to Mr. Donohue he went back to bashing the Church, he is a one
    trick pony. Fr. Morris also showed Mr. Donohue that his view of the Church
    is just wrong and that Church is returning to its basic Truths and Traditions
    and that is what is bring the Church back to its rightful place and this is
    what irks Mr. Donohue and his kind. He did this in a respectful and charitble
    manner. God bless Fr. Morris and may we be blessed with many more young priest
    like him.

    Carlos
21. Michael J says:

    1 April 2009 at 12:37 PM

    Joe, in the interest of accuracy and fairness (rather than an attempt to defend any particular political idealogy) there were significant advancements in the pro-life cause under the Bush administration. Perhaps these things are insufficient, but I think it disingenuous to characterize them as “no progress”

    1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
    2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration
    3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation
    4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act
    5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003
    6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act
    7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
    8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion
    9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments
    10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells
    11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign
    12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (http://www.AdoptUSKids.org)
    13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses
    14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day
    15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program
    16. Fought assisted suicide
    17. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition
    18. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education
22. Phil Steinacker says:

    2 April 2009 at 1:32 AM

    I mean no disrespect to you, Joe, or to others I’ve seen express the view that the pro-abort votes by Republican Supreme Court nominations to the SCOTUS “disprove” the credentials of the Republican Party as a pro-life party. However, I must candidly say that your position demonstrates a particularly thin understanding of the political realities of the times in which many of these appointments were made.

    Your conclusion that the Republican Party failed us pro-life Americans in SCOTUS appointments doesn’t square with the fact that no Republican president could ever get confirmed the nominees he really wanted while the Senate was under such firm control by Democrats. Even with a majority in the Senate Republicans often lack the necessary margins to overcome the dirty politics played by pro-abort Democrats demanding a 60-vote super-majority for “controversial” candidates – code for those thought to be lacking sufficient allegiance to Roe v. Wade.

    Additionally, among some SCOTUS appointments over history there have been those who disappointed the president who “made” them. This outcome has tormented many a president, but it was Eisenhower who most famously complained that Chief Justice Warren and Justice William Brennan were the two biggest mistakes he ever made, and I think we can all see why. While Eisenhower certainly didn’t intend those two to vote as they did, once confirmed a justice is a free agent.

    Remember Bork? The Dems stopped him cold, and the nation was the loser. However, at times we have been able to get through some of the very best: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. You can tell by their vitriol that the liberals hate ALL those confirmations.

    However, it simply comes down to the political reality that all too often we’ve been blocked from the appointments we want to make and we are left only with the nominees we can actually get past Ted Kennedy liberals. These “compromise” candidates usually turn out to be such major disappointments like Souter, and earlier, Brennan. I understand and share your frustration, but your conclusions that these are specifically Republican failures of responsibility are politically uninformed. Mostly we have simply lacked the votes to get true conservatives onto the SCOTUS.

    If anyone is to blame, it is the American people (and a bunch of Catholics – even back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s – sound familiar?) who voted for a Republican president and denied him the necessary margins in the Senate to appoint the jurists he needed to carry out his mandate – whether Republicans “controlled” the Senate or not. The truth is that Republicans haven’t held a 60 vote Senate majority at least since the 1920s – if that.

    The reality is that there is no other game in town except the Republican Party for conservatives and pro-life Catholics, and as flawed as it can sometimes be the nearest alternative (which is not saying much at all) is the non-viable Libertarian Party. This is a party philosophically and morally at odds with itself, the result being that it is confused by attempting the application of too many contradictory but major principles to ever be a majority party. Heck, it can’t even perform moderately well as a minority party – and it never will.

    Subsequently, any migration away from the Republican Party will be at our own expense, and will produce results for the Democrats like Ralph Nader so generously provided us in election years past. I say this as someone who sees himself first as a Catholic, then as a political conservative, then as an American, and last as a Republican who finally switched party registration from “D” only in 2006, after having voted primarily Republican for over 10 years. I am decidedly NOT a practitioner of strong party allegiance.

    Anyway, I know it’s a bitter pill so go on and swallow it, get it over with, and stop complaining as if you or anyone could have done better in those same Senate confirmation battles. To suggest otherwise is the height of political immaturity and naiveté.

Comments are closed.