Friday, September 28, 2012

Obama Puppet Tells Egregious Lie to Catholics

Last month I posted an entry examining "Catholics for Obama," the national leaders of Obama's committee in charge of trying to bamboozle Catholics into voting for Obama by lying about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. There is an article being published on Monday by The Weekly Standard that reports on one of the most egregious lies I have yet to hear, and the lie comes from one of the Obama committee members. It comes from a man at none other than the Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, Stephen Schneck.

I find it shameful that my alma mater allows this man to be associated with the university that the Bishops themselves call their own. Stephen Schneck is the same one who said previously that Obama is more pro-life than Romney. Now this liar says basically that Catholics cannot vote for Mitt Romney because under a Republican administration there will be a 6-8% increase in the number of abortions in America. His reasoning is asinine. I am infuriated that he hides under the mantle of Catholicism to make this absurd and shameful assertion.

Please read the article here: Pass it along to every Catholic you know so that they can be informed of the lies that Obama and his puppets are perpetrating on Catholics. Then ask your Catholic friends write to their respective bishops and insist that this man be removed from the payroll of the Catholic University of America.



  1. Is the the professor that did an interview with Raymond Arroyo on The World Over? Alice von Hildebrand wrote a scathing rebuttal to this silly man.

    The lily images on your border are lovely.

  2. It's still not answered in depth by either side...Schneck or Weekly .standard. For example your link says: " Guttmacher found that when Medicaid funding for abortion was cut, anywhere between 18 percent and 37 percent of pregnancies that would have been abortions were converted to births.". That sentence is still not addressing what happens among the poor when medicaid is cut back for BOTH abortion and childbirth. Picture it. A girl making $19,000 a year was eligible under medicaid for either abortion or child birth...the latter being more expensive. Ryan cuts eventually exclude her from any medicaid due to income level. Unless she is moral, she will be tempted to choose the less expensive. Catholics are so grossed out at Obama, that they are trying to imagine Ryan as Mother Teresa. The Weekly Standard article does no research
    on the key question: if Ryan cuts to medicaid eliminate a large group of females by income from all medicaid...both abortive and birthing. What are those females likely to do now that they have to spend out of their low income for either abortion or birthing. It is not solved by either side because as your link notes, there is no research on cuts to BOTH funding abortion and birthing simultaneously. We're left with common sense: if the top income end of poor women are denied BOTH help for abortion and help for birthing, they are going to abort if they lack morals and they are going to give birth if they have morals.
    If you believe that a substantial number of females are not moral, then medicaid cutbacks will increase abortions but putting a percent on it is odd. I am against Obama who has multiple offenses but Ryan cutting back medicaid intuitively will increase abortions which would not be a sin on his part if he believes the nation will go bankrupt otherwise. But if that's true, why is he sparing the military of any cuts whatsoever. Brown University costed out Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan costs as $4 trillion to the US and Iraq was to find wmd that were not there. Ryan voted for The Iraq war twice which the Pope opposed.
    Obama stinks far more but Ryan is stinky too. And Romney supports some it.

  3. You clearly did not read the Schneck's comments. Readers can decide for themselves how to value your judgment of this guy which is based solely on your reading of an opinion article in The Weekly Standard. I suggest your effort to "make informed choices" would be better served by developing your own original opinion from an analysis of the man's actual comments rather than by simply parroting a published Republican position. Your position could be different - or maybe it'll be the similar - but at least your judgment of the guy will be based on actual events - and not solely on William Kristol's interpretation.