Question: Which Catholic public official in America

There are all sorts of ways the Church is forced to respond to Sebelius’s actions, from her own bishop dealing with her personally to the USCCB and Catholic institutions dealing with her and Obama’s unprecedented assault on Catholics’ freedom of conscience. But one way that no Catholic or Catholic institution should respond would be by honoring Sebelius with a platform at a commencement ceremony—a giant no-no explicitly forbidden by John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Yeah, but, gee, come on, no institution would do that!

Well, amazingly, one such Catholic institution, Georgetown University, has done just that. Yes, that’s right. Georgetown invited Sebelius to give a commencement address. It’s true, it really is. You can’t make this up.

Georgetown’s action is stunning, a flagrant, arrogant in-your-face gesture to the Catholic Church.

For a slightly different take on this, consider my perspective as a professor. I teach political science and government at an undergraduate institution. I have superb students who constantly consider Georgetown for graduate school. Do I continue to recommend they consider Georgetown?

Beyond Kathleen Sebelius, another Georgetown incident sticks with me:

It occurred in April 2005. It was related to me by a former student attending grad school at Georgetown. It was shortly after the death of John Paul II. My student was among other students awaiting the announcement of the new pope. When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stepped out, my student—thrilled to see Ratzinger as the new pope—was suddenly horrified at the litany of obscenities and insults shouted by his fellow Georgetown students. “Fascist!” one student yelled at the new pope, adding another choice “f” word to his insult. “Nazi!” screeched another.

My student, a former Baptist considering converting to the Catholic Church, halted the conversion process right there. If this was Catholicism, he wanted none of it.

And, indeed, maybe that’s the crux of the issue at Georgetown. Is this Catholicism?

For Catholic Exchange dot com and Ave Maria Radio, I’m Paul Kengor.

For too long, this country has suffered from a severely misguided understanding of church-state separation, fostered by secular liberals/progressives. And now, those same forces—or at least those devoted to President Obama and so-called “abortion rights” above all else—are employing that very misunderstanding in an assault upon the religious freedom and consciences of Catholics. They are doing so, of course, via the Obama mandate on contraception and abortion drugs.

The problem begins with the very notion of “separation of church and state.” Huge numbers of Americans mistakenly believe those words are chiseled into the Constitution, ascribing to them a tremendous weight and power that plainly do not exist. In fact, those words are not found in the Constitution at all.

To the contrary, the First Amendment ensures “the free exercise” of religion.

Well, if the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the Constitution, then where are they?

The phrase is found in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson, written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.

Jefferson, the newly elected president, assured his Connecticut friends that they had no fear from the federal government, which would not intrude upon them and the practice of their faith—nor, as Jefferson put it, their “rights of conscience”—given that their relationship with God was between them and God. The purpose in this historic Jefferson-Baptist exchange was to protect not government from religion but religion (that is, religious people) from the intrusion of government.

And now, 200-plus years after Jefferson’s letter and the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we are left with too many liberals/progressives too often incorrectly telling us that at the crux of religion in America is a sacred “Constitutional” anchor called “separation of church and state,” which means that your individual faith should not disrupt or disorder society and the state. You must take your faith out of the public square and confine it to yourself, your home, your church.

That’s wrong. And that wrong is now breeding yet more wrongs.

For Catholic Exchange and Ave Maria Radio, I’m Paul Kengor.

I want to say three things relating to West’s remarks: First, some criticism of West’s critics. Second, a defense of West’s critics. And, finally, some criticism of West, which I offer constructively. I like Allen West and want him to succeed.

First, on West’s critics:

Their concern about West’s exaggeration and name-calling has little credibility coming from an ideology (liberalism) and political party (Democrats) who constantly engage in exaggeration and name-calling. I could point out a litany of examples. It’s as easy as the latest liberal/Democrat gambit accusing Republicans of a “war on women” merely because they believe the federal government shouldn’t force taxpayers to fund contraception and Planned Parenthood. For that crime, West’s colleague Maxine Waters called Republicans “demons.” Nancy Pelosi said they want women to “die on the floor.” Dianne Feinstein insisted they want “to sock it to women.” Harry Reid claimed Republicans have placed a “bull’s eye on women.” Barbara Boxer described it as a “vendetta” against women. Congresswoman Barbara Lee summed it up as a GOP “war on women.”

I could go on and on. Google the words “George W. Bush” and “Hitler” or “Nazi.” Or recall the obscene statements from Democratic lawmakers regarding the Iraq war. Remember that Senator Dick Durbin compared our troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others.”

But only when a Rush Limbaugh blows his top—or someone like Allen West issues charges like this one—does the New York Times start issuing calls for civility.

Point made. Now, for my second and third points:

Allen West needs to be much more careful. He sloppily overlapped categories and blurred lines of distinction. The reality is that the left side of the political spectrum is very broad. It includes Democrats, liberals, progressives, “social-justice” Christians, socialists, communists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and more. There are distinct differences, even when a liberal Democrat favors something that Marx favored. For instance, point two in Marx’s 10-point plan inThe Communist Manifesto calls for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Advocates of this include basically the entirety of the Democratic membership of the House of Representatives—but it doesn’t make them Marxists. Consider point three in Marx’s 10-point plan, which calls for “abolition of all rights of inheritance.” Many “liberals” and “progressives” advocate that to some degree (via taxation), but I know of no Congressional Democrat calling for complete abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Likewise, Marx wrote this: “the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Yes, liberals place all kinds of restrictions on private property, but I know of no Congressional Democrat who would go as far as Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro.

Here’s the reality that often complicates things for conservatives when looking at the political left: Liberals agree with communists on many key sympathies—workers’ rights, spreading and redistributing wealth, a narrow to non-existent income gap, an expansive central government offering a wide array of “free” government services, favoring the public sector over the private sector, class-based rhetoric (often demagoguery) toward the wealthy, progressively high tax rates. The differences are matters of degree, but they are crucial differences.

Sure, Allen West didn’t say that every liberal in Congress is a communist. Yet, he did say that there is a huge portion. Even worse, he initially said that “78 to 81” were actual Communist Partymembers, or about 40 percent of the Democratic membership. Clearly that’s not accurate. If it is, then West should be chiseled into Mt. Rushmore for exposing the greatest threat to Washington since the War of 1812—and we should commence a national march to the Capitol right now, with torches.

I assume that West misspoke, and meant communists (lower case “c”) in ideology, not actual card-carrying Communist Party members.

Allen West has forgotten the painful lesson of Joe McCarthy: If you’re going to call certain people communists, you better be absolutely, 100 percent certain. There’s nothing that liberals detest more than anti-communism. Their preferred villain is Joe McCarthy, not Joe Stalin. They and their mass media will go ballistic, demanding a level of precision from you that they never demand from their own name-callers. Our side must be more cautious; that’s the deck stacked against us.

Allen West, your courage and boldness is refreshing, but please be more careful.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Almost immediately after Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican presidential hunt, David Axelrod and the Obama reelection team unleashed the class-warfare cannons. They expected to enjoy the first salvo of the season, fired by Democratic lobbyist Hilary Rosen. In a CNN interview, Rosen claimed that Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, “has actually never worked a day in her life.”

It was a nasty blow, and the public rallied to Ann Romney’s defense. As for Ann Romney, she didn’t remain silent. “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys,” she said. “Believe me, it was hard work.” She might have noted her considerable physical sacrifices as well—such as breast cancer and MS—but didn’t.

While Hilary Rosen’s shot was still smoldering, liberal blogs were rife with fresh Democratic talking points vilifying Mitt Romney as a “one percenter,” asking whether he paid his “fair share” in taxes, and attacking him for squirreling away his vile riches in foreign bank accounts. It was total class warfare. And this was just week one!

But then came the wonderful thing: Merely six days after Hilary Rosen’s comment, major polling organizations released numbers on a head-to-head match-up between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and Romney suddenly has a lead. The most respected among them, Gallup, released numbers on April 17 showing Romney ahead by five points, 48 to 43 percent.

Why is this wonderful? It’s not that I adore Mitt Romney, but I loathe class hatred. Marx and the Bolsheviks and their disciples did it with great destruction. I don’t want it in my country.

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact reasons for Romney’s sudden surge over Obama, but no doubt some of this (particularly the swipe at Ann Romney) backfired. Or, at the least, some pollsters and pundits are interpreting it that way. If so, then maybe—just maybe—Axelrod might learn that not all forms of class warfare will resonate with Americans. Let’s hope that’s the case, because, otherwise, Axelrod and the president he serves—who Axelrod portrays as the Great Unifier and fountain of hope—will be bitterly dividing this nation along economic lines.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, not only has President Obama been unceasingly employing class rhetoric for three years now, but Axelrod has been thrilling over precisely such an assault against Mitt Romney. “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession—a sort of political Gordon Gekko,” reported an August 2011 Politico piece titled, “Obama plan: Destroy Romney.” The piece quoted Axelrod: “He [Romney] was very, very good at making a profit for himself and his partners but not nearly as good [at] saving jobs for communities. He is very much the profile of what we’ve seen in the last decade on Wall Street.”

This had been the plan before the Occupy Wall Street movement got up and running. Axelrod and Obama see Romney as red meat to feed the Occupy movement. As the Occupiers exploded last fall, Axelrod paused to tell MSNBC: “[Romney] says he represents business, but he really represents theWall Street side of business.”

Envy is a deadly sin, but Team Obama desires it as an excellent divide-and-conquer tactic. Axelrod and Obama both cut their political teeth in Chicago, home of Obama inspiration Saul Alinsky, who preached the tactic of “isolating” a target and “demonizing” it. Romney’s riches fit the bill nicely.

More recently, in January, Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos that Romney is “not a job creator” but a “corporate raider” who outsourced “tens of thousands of jobs,” “closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices,” and raked in “hundreds of millions of dollars” at the expense of the poor. Axelrod referred to this as the sinister “Bain mentality.”

Alas, here we are, April 2012, with the presidential race finally down to Obama v. Romney, and the first polls show Obama behind this rapacious capitalist reptile.

So, will Romney’s sudden surge signal to Axelrod and Obama to call off the class-warfare dogs? I doubt it. This thinking is too close to their hearts. They’ve been hungering for this; fomenting class envy is what they long to do. But maybe—just maybe—the American public won’t swallow it.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the people of this country quit hating each other, including hating people with more money? I’m hoping so, but our messengers of hope, Obama and Axelrod, are hoping not.

“I love Fidel Castro,” said Florida Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen to Time magazine. “A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still here.” Guillen “respects” the Cuban despot.

Think about it. How many liberals extolled the right of conscientious objection during the Vietnam War? During times of mandatory military service, this nation has mercifully granted conscientious objection. If you were convinced, based on your faith in particular, that war was wrong, you had the option to not participate. I could fill this page with Catholic monks and priests who publicly defended that right during Vietnam, from Thomas Merton to the Berrigan brothers. They were heroes of liberals for taking that stand.

In fact, here, too, the Catholic Church, as an institution, has a lot to say.

Forty years ago, the Second Vatican Council issued a Declaration on Religious Freedom affirming that Catholics are duty-bound to faithfully follow not the dictates of government but their conscience. The Church’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World states that governments cannot compel a citizen to engage in military service if that person is convinced that physical combat is sinful. The Church condemns “blind obedience” to unjust regimes that commit unjust actions.

Popes and bishops and theologians before and after have consistently reaffirmed these positions. The Catechism states that, “Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order.” Quoting the New Testament, the Catechism states: “We must obey God rather than men.”

Importantly, though I’ve cited Catholic teaching, millions of non-Catholics follow these principles, from Quakers to the Amish to the Mennonites.

Conscientious objection is a precious right in this nation.

Have so-called “abortion rights” become so sacred to liberals that they are willing to sacrifice conscience exemptions at the altar of Roe v. Wade? Do they really want to head down this road? I suggest they stop and think hard about what they’re advocating.

Several times during the debate and deliberation, my mind harkened back to the words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Remarking on the original Obamacare bill, Pelosi infamously said that first “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Even more outrageous was another Pelosi observation, especially given the pivotal role of the Supreme Court. In October 2009, Pelosi was asked by a reporter if the healthcare legislation was constitutional. Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Reporter: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Reporter: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi’s incredulity at that perfectly reasonable question is as telling as it is stunning. She scorned the very thought, as if the reporter were either a total idiot, an unregenerate right-wing Neanderthal, or had flown in on a flying saucer from Neptune.

And yet, as Congresswoman Pelosi learned last week, the reporter had hit the crux of the issue. So did state attorneys general nationwide, who quickly filed lawsuits precisely on whether Obamacare is constitutional.

Pelosi’s contempt for that notion—apparently shared by many of her “progressive” colleagues—has come back to bite her and President Obama and the entirety of the progressive/liberal movement. Democrats who scoff at such questions do so at their own peril. There is another branch of government in this country; it’s called the judiciary. And that branch for over 200 years has been tasked with exactly such a duty: that is, reviewing the constitutionality of legislation.

Ironically, Pelosi’s behavior does a greater disservice to the goals of her own party than to conservatives. Liberals need to step back and understand what has unraveled with Obamacare: Their party leaders flagrantly ignored legitimate constitutional objections (and numerous other criticisms) raised by opponents. These objections were so well-placed that they now hold the potential to place a dagger in the heart of their prized legislation. If the individual mandate is struck down as un-constitutional, then the entire Obamacare legislation might be finished, given that the individual mandate is the chief funding mechanism for the entire program.

Even then, the constitutional problems don’t end there. Next up, probably next year, will be the Obama-HHS mandate requiring every American, including all religious believers and institutions—with the Catholic Church at the center of the controversy—to fund contraception and abortion drugs. Here, too, President Obama and his allies are pushing another mandate that will have to be reviewed by courts because of its blatant challenge to the Constitution—in this case, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and conscience.

Alas, this brings me to a sincere query for liberals: Why do you tolerate Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi (among others)? I could literally write a book on outrageous Pelosi comments uttered just in the last five years, from amazing statements like those quoted above to her breathtaking remarks on her own Catholic Church and its teachings on human life.

Why do Democrats accept such shoddy leadership? They are making their dearest plans vulnerable to immediate rejection by the constitutional process. If I were a progressive dreaming of universal healthcare, I would be extremely disappointed. As noted by Joe Postell, a scholar on the progressive movement, progressives have been trying to implement “universal healthcare” since literally 1912, when those words appeared in that year’s Progressive Party platform. In 2009, they finally had their big chance, but may have blown it by ridiculing or ignoring—and not dealing with—their critics’ objections.

Or, on the other hand, do they have such disrespect and disregard for their critics that they don’t care what they say? If that’s the case, it isn’t prudent leadership. Think about your own life or career or home or company: For major decisions, don’t you at least consider possible obstacles or pitfalls?

Someday, “progressives” may have a solid majority on the Supreme Court and can blithely dismiss the original intent of the Constitution. If Americans keep voting as they do, such a majority is a distinct possibility. For now, however, they ignore realities at their peril. Simply calling conservatives idiots isn’t very smart.

Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi, we’re serious.

President Obama has caused quite a stir with a private comment made to Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. In discussing missile defense, Obama suggested he would be prepared to yield to Russian demands after the November election. “This is my last election,” said Obama, not knowing his words were being picked up by an open microphone. “After my election, I have more flexibility.” A pleased Medvedev replied: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”

At the core of the battle of the Obama-HHS mandate on contraception and abortion drugs is a battle with modern progressives over the very essence of rights.

The Declaration of Independence heralds our God-given “inalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The First Amendment of our Constitution enumerates freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.

All of those rights have constituted our sacred rights for over 200 years.

The progressive project, however, seeks to change all of this, even while progressives—President Obama chief among them—insist that they admire the Declaration and Constitution.

There have been two major turning points: Roe v. Wade, decided in January 1973; and now the Obama contraception/abortion mandate. What have these two actions done? What are progressives now doing with these actions?

They have created—yes, created—a “woman’s right to choose” and elevated that so-called “right” as a paramount right, a pinnacle right, the ultimate sacred right that trumps all other rights, including freedom of religion and conscience.

This is especially amazing given that a “right to choose,” or “right to an abortion,” or even “right to privacy”—the words upon which Roe’s “abortion rights” are based—are words themselves not even found in the Constitution. They are invented, inflated, and elevated at the expense of words like “right to life,” which are found in the Constitution.

So, where are we today? Liberal “progressives” like Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius and Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi insist that Catholics and other religious believers be denied their historic, Constitutional conscience exemption and religious liberty. They insist that these people of faith acquiesce to the dictates of the state. They are essentially arguing that a so-called “right” to taxpayer-funded abortion drugs trumps religious freedom.

This is their brave new progressive world. And how many self-professing Catholics voted for it—voting for these legislators under the banner of “social justice?” They have unwittingly voted for the undermining of their own rights of religion and conscience.

Well, you reap what you sow.

Pay close attention to the media’s reporting on President Obama’s mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. When you hear the subject reported, it’s rarely reported with that specificity, with that accuracy. Typically, the media simply refers to the Obama mandate on “contraception.” That’s it. Many reporters are leaving out the words “abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals.” It’s a rather significant—indeed, fatal—omission.

It’s a sin of omission that aids and abets President Obama’s purposes, as he and his staff frame their decree against the Catholic Church as a matter not about abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals, or even religious liberty, or conscience exemptions, or the Constitution—but strictly about a “woman’s right to choose” “contraception.”

In this debate, language will be critical in leading and misleading a dumbed-down public. The media will be Obama’s willful ally.

A case in point was shared with me by a colleague who works for one of the major news networks. He’s an orthodox Roman Catholic. In the copy of a commentary that he sent to his editor, he referred to President Obama’s mandate providing “FDA-approved contraceptives, sterilization, and ‘morning-after’ birth-control pills.” This was accurate, of course, but that accuracy is damaging to the progressive cause. And so, the editor changed his copy and went with this description instead “FDA-approved contraceptives and sterilization services.”

Note: no mention of abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. That was curiously deleted.

He who controls the language, controls the public debate, and thus controls the public.

My friend’s example is happening everywhere.

Who are the victims of this? Ironically, it’s the women who listen to, watch, read, and trust these mainstream news sources. They believe they’re getting truthful, honest reporting. To the contrary, they are being misled, to the point that they may be merrily using these so-called “contraceptives” and giving themselves abortions—many abortions—without evening knowing it.

Well, ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Or is it? I bet these women feel this in their soul, in their conscience.

Yes, there’s one conscience exemption that not even President Obama and his fellow progressives can stop.