I just stumbled upon these excellent commentaries by Michael Voris for RealCatholicTV.com on Notre Dame’s invitation of President Abortion to be its featured commencement speaker in May and recipient of an honorary doctor of laws degree.
This one was released yesterday…
And this one was released March 23…
See previous posts:
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill,
Great videos! Can you slow down? I can’t keep up with all of these ND posts. :)
Michael Voris should be President of Notre Dame.
Janet, I know! I’m exhausted!
The decision by Father John Jenkins makes no sense. He could not be so dull that he could not have forseen the controversy that would arise from inviting PBHO to speak at Notre Dame commencement exercises and ‘honoring’ Obama with a honorary law degree from Notre Dame. The damage it is doing to the prestige of the august university will not be easliy repaired.
I would prefer to believe that Jenkins has been coerced into this action rather than believe it was the result of deliberations between him and his board of advisors.
I recommend searching Jenkins’ closet or his tax returns. There are skeletons somewhere.
His decision to invite Obama to Notre Dame is not the result of a rational man. What will Notre Dame possibly gain from this debacle that will offset the damage that is done.
This decision will not stand up to any objective risk benefit analysis. Father Jenkins has not exercised due diligence.
The effect will be to further divide the alumi, students and faculty of Notre Dame.
These six things the Lord hates, indeed, seven are an abomination to Him:
1) A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others],
2) a lying tongue,
3) hands that shed innocent blood, [Ps 120:2,3.]
4) A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans,
5) feet that are swift in running to evil,
6) A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath],
7) he who sows discord among his brethren.
This will not end well, unless the one who gave the offense acknowledges his error, reverses his course and asks those who have taken offense to forgive him and release him from the yoke he has willing taken upon himself.
yor bro ken
“I’m biased toward nurses…. I just like nurses.”
~ President Barack Obama in townhall meeting today
—————————————————–
Jill,
Are you feelin’ the luv of PBHO?
yor bro
kbhvac at March 26, 2009 7:43 PM
Ken,
great points…
Is it really that bad for a Catholic Institution to invite a speaker who has different views than the church?
President Obama is a pretty great guy, maybe we should lighten up.
ND’s first choice for this “honor” was probably Nancy Pelosi…but her schedule is pretty hectic these days…
Hal, you don’t understand. This is a serious situation. Notre Dame is a university named for the Blessed Mother (Jesus’ mother). The university is supposed to hold to the CATHOLIC FAITH’s teachings. This means not having pro abortion or pro euthanasia speakers. It means having a speaker that doesn’t have beliefs that go against the very center of the Catholic faith.
I’d be outraged if they had asked Jack Kevorkian or someone else from the culture of death speaking.
I don’t understand why Father Jenkins asked the most anti life President to speak to the graduates.
A better choice would be someone else…..maybe a good Holy CATHOLIC?
What excellent videos. Kudos to Michael. Let’s spread these far and wide.
A better choice would be someone else…..maybe a good Holy CATHOLIC?
Really, Liz! At least someone who isn’t a threat to the Church, for heaven’s sake. TheCatholicThing.org is reporting that the O admin plans to appeal to the nuncio to silence Abp Burke because of his criticism of Sebelius.
O must have laughed himself silly when he got the invitation from ND. Talk about irony. Free speech for O but not for the abp. And an award to boot.
Sheesh…Is Obama screwing up royal or what? I can’t think of one good thing the man has done for our country yet. Am I alone in my thoughts?
Hope everyone on the blog is okay. Sending well wishes to all.
Heather! I missed you. Hope you and the family are doing well :)
Jasper, Nice to see you buddy! Same to you! Always a pleasure.
I really have to thank this blog for helping me to find a new path in life. I am very active in abortion sidewalk counseling today. I went back to church, and I love networking with other Christians!!! It has also prepared me in dealing with pro aborts [ in the flesh]. I guess I have matured a great deal. I really didn’t believe that there were people out there that REALLY thought this way, but now I see it for myself. Thanks to all who were so very helpful in educating me.
AND….my computer has been down for several months. I have lost touch with lots of you. My entire system crashed and all of my e-mails were lost and wiped out. If anyone would like to reach me, I’d be happy to give you the new address.
you go Vortex!!! woooohoooo and on the lighter side — is it just me or does the picture of Christ look like one of the BeeGees??
..”an inspiring leader”… “a healer”.
~ Notre Dame President, Father John Jenkins, describing President Barack Obama.
—————————————————–
Well, I guess PBHO could be considered ‘inspiring’ to some.
One man’s treasure is another man’s junk.
But ‘healer’?
Where’s the ‘healing’, bro.?
Global warming appears to be in spontaneous remission, but I do not know if we can attribute that to PBHO.
Algore, maybe, but not PBHO.
Has the rising of the ocean slowed?
Is the economy healed? It doesnt look like it yet.
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/random/obama-steveurkel.jpg
The republicans and the democrats do not seem to be experiencing any form of ‘reconciliation’
VPOTUS Biden tried to get a lame man to rise and walk during the campaign, but the attempt was unsuccesful.
Sorry, Father John, you are going to have to show me the ‘healing’. I just do not see any verifiable evidence that PBHO has ‘healed’ anything or anyone.
FJ, pray for the ‘pop’. That is your most immediate need.
I do not believe PBHO has the desire nor the ability to make that happen for you. You will need to seek a higher power.
yor bro ken
I just do not see any verifiable evidence that PBHO has ‘healed’ anything or anyone.
I’m in total agreement with you, Ken. Creating division seems to be his strong suit. And ND played right into his hand. I’m sure the prez would rather have Catholics focusing on ND than on health care worker conscience regs or other issues in Washington.
Hal: “Is it really that bad for a Catholic Institution to invite a speaker who has different views than the church?”
When the difference happens to be about whether or not a class of humans deserves basic human rights, it does. Especially when that speaker has personally had a substantial impact on the protection of these humans.
Hal: “President Obama is a pretty great guy, maybe we should lighten up.”
Youre either an idiot or a douchebag by making this statement. Surely you know that everyone else here sees Obama as a POS right? Naively making those kinds of comments either goes to show your ignorance or to show your desire to disrupt and offend.
Naively making those kinds of comments either goes to show your ignorance or to show your desire to disrupt and offend.
Posted by: Oliver at March 26, 2009 11:07 PM
If those are my choices, I’d prefer “disrupt and offend.”
My real point, however, was to perhaps cause some here to pause just a second and re-evaluate their opposition to President Obama. Look, If Bush came to my college to speak, I would have torn the place apart and probably burned it down too. I understnad. But, the country is split on this abortion thing. Half of us don’t agree with the other half. Obama’s position is not that unusual or radical. Can we quit acting like he’s some kind of monster? He’s pro choice, you’re pro life. We get it.
ken,
Perhaps Fr. Jenkins sees Obama as a healer of racial wounds?? On another thread, Jill posted a letter from a black priest, Rev. John J. Raphael, from New Orleans to Father Jenkins….
His perspective on Obama’s presidency is very interesting. Here’s an excerpt from an excellent article he wrote earlier this year before all the hoopla at ND. (I posted this at the other thread as well.)
Aborted babies don’t vote, can’t get a good education, have no access to decent housing, can’t earn a just wage, do not benefit from a clean and green environment, cannot emigrate legally or illegally, and have already received the death penalty and been executed by the state before they were even capable of committing a crime. They cannot support or protest any policy, practice, or person whom they feel to be guilty of an infringement upon their rights. They simply die. There only hope is the Infinite Mercy of our Eternal Father and, thank God, that is a blessed hope! But His mercy does not remove our responsibility to make sure that each of them has their God-given right to live protected by our government and our laws.
http://www.nbccongress.org/features/bridge-01.asp
Building a Bridge over Troubled Waters
By Rev. John J. Raphael, SSJ
Hal,
Burned down the college? Who’s over-reacting here?
Even tho your response isn’t directed to me… Let’s turn the tables here….
Perhaps you could re-evaluate your position on Bush. He wasn’t that radical, and seems like a nice-enough guy. The kind-of guy you could have a beer with. Could we quit acting likes he’s some kind of monster?
Can we quit acting like he’s some kind of monster?
This man fought tooth and nail to prevent born babies from getting medical care because it would make the mother feel bad for her original decision to have the child killed. He’s also voted in support of the practice of birthing babies up to the neck, stabbing scissors in the child’s skull and sucking out the brain.
How does this not make him a monster?
Hal: “My real point, however, was to perhaps cause some here to pause just a second and re-evaluate their opposition to President Obama.”
So you are an idiot then? You really think making the comment “but I mean hes an okay guy!” would make us do that? How naive you really are. Explains a lot
Can we quit acting like he’s some kind of monster? He’s pro choice, you’re pro life. We get it.
Posted by: Hal at March 27, 2009 12:16 AM
——————————————————–
“Obama’s position is not that unusual or radical.”
How is PBHO’s position on abortion NOT unusual or radical as measured by his actions, not his rambling rhetoric?
He has taken positions and promoted legislation that even Hillary Clinton would NOT support.
He has take positions and promoted legislation that NARAL would not endorse.
When you oppose legislation that would put limits on abortions on post viable premature infants,
When you oppose legislation, multiple times, that would ensure the human rights of premature infants born alive as the result of an attempted abortion, knowing that they are being willfully neglected to hasten their death, then I would submit that is not just simply outside boundaries of the mainstream.
It is the behavior of a monster.
monster
1: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2: a threatening force
3: something monstrous ; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
Hal, you do NOT get it, yet.
Keep listening for the ‘pop’.
yor bro ken
Hal,
This may have escaped your attention. I will re-post it so we know just exactly what it is that PBHO aggressively promotes and protects.
——————————————————
It was discovered that the University of Nebraska Medical Center was conducting experiments using brain tissue from pre-born children killed by the notorious partial birth abortionist Leroy Carhart.
What follows is court testimony from July ’97 where abortionist Carhart explains how he commits abortions.
Under oath in July 1997, abortionist Leroy Carhart comments on how he performs abortions.
Here he is questioned by HIS attorney:
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?
Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz. I think most…statistically the most common presentation, we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it’s what they world call a transverse lie, so really you’re looking at a side profile of a curved [human] fetus. When the patient…the uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.
Question: What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.
Question: At what point is the fetus…does the [human] fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the [human] fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see [human] fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
The Court: Counsel, for what it’s worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D&E when [human] fetal demise occurs.
Question: Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the [human] fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.
Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know, what the arm is, you know, what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the [human] fetus out. I don’t know where this…all the controversy about rotating the [human] fetus comes from. I don’t attempt to do that. I just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the [human] fetus.
Question: At the time that you bring out the feet in this example, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Question: Then what’s the next step you do?
Carhart: I didn’t mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.
Question: What is the cord?
Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the [human] fetus to the back to the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the [human] fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don’t think anyone really knows.
Question: Are there situations where you don’t divide the cord?
Carhart: There are situations when I can’t.
Question: What are those?
Carhart: I just can’t get to the cord. It’s either high above the [human] fetus and structures where you can’t reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.
Question: Let’s take the situation where you haven’t divided the cord because you couldn’t, and you have begun to remove a living [human] fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?
Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try … you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the [human] fetal … the base of the [human] fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.
Question: What do you do next?
Carhart: And you can reach that, and that’s where you would rupture the [human] fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.
Question: At what point in that process does [human] fetal demise occur between initial remove…removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I’m sorry, the decompressing of the skull?
Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I’m not sure what [human] fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the [human] fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the [human] fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don’t think it has any brain function, so it’s brain dead at that point.
Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?
Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and the don’t die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the [human] fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.
Later under cross examination from the AG’S counsel, Carhart stated:
“My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy.”
——————————————————–
The vast majority of human beings would recoil in horror if they heard that testimony, much less actually viewed the barbarous process.
monster
1: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2: a threatening force
3: something monstrous ; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
There is only a difference by fractional degrees from people who comit these monstrous acts and those who promote and protect the monsters and those who excuse the bloody gory practice.
If abortion were illegal they would all be equally culpable of homicide.
yor bro ken
Hal: “My real point, however, was to perhaps cause some here to pause just a second and re-evaluate their opposition to President Obama.”
—————————————————
I have re-evaluated. PBHO has not changed, I have not changed, the reality of the humanity of the human embryo/fetus has not changed.
2+2 still equals 4.
PBHO is a monstrous barbarian.
If any ‘NEW’ facts come to light I will re-evaluate.
Perhaps it is you who should re-evaluate.
Listen for the ‘pop’.
yor bro ken
So, we have a few commentators here who are not yet convinced that Obama is a decent guy and fine president.
For the uninformed,
the ‘pop’
is the sound produced when a human’s head is mercifully, forcefully and suddenly extracted from the rectum of said human.
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee.
For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and gross darkness the peoples;
but Jehovah will arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Luke 1:78-79
Because of and through the heart of tender mercy and loving-kindness of our God, a Light from on high will dawn upon us and visit [us] [Mal 4:2.]
To shine upon and give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to direct and guide our feet in a straight line into the way of peace. [Isa 9:2.]
Pray for the promise of the ‘pop’ for yourself and for others.
yor bro ken
So, we have a few commentators here who are not yet convinced that Obama is a decent guy and fine president.
Posted by: Hal at March 27, 2009 9:26 AM
——————————————————
Hal,
That was an understatement of such magnitude and gentle sarcasm that it made me laugh outloud, even given the seriousness of the situation.
Thank you Hal for the wry humor.
And we have fewer still commenters who are still acutely and chronically afflicted with ODS.
‘Obama Delusional Syndrome’.
But I remain hopeful that God will eventually disabuse us all of our ‘false knowledge’.
yor bro ken
These videos, and the comments that follow them have left me feeling quite depressed and sickened to the very core of my Catholic soul. How could we have strayed so far from the teachings of Christ ? How can we spit out such hatred and venom, while claiming the mantle of righteousness. Obama is a man. He’s our President. Disagree with him for sure. But in hating him, you bring shame on our Church and on this wonderful institution – Notre Dame.
So, we have a few commentators here who are not yet convinced that Obama is a decent guy and fine president.
Posted by: Hal at March 27, 2009 9:26 AM
-It’s a shame for them, isn’t it?
Just give them time, Danielle.
Yep. Give us time. Time to watch Obama destroy America…tick *tick *tick**
This is what I’m talking about. “destroy America?” Not bloody likely. Had to take such over-reaction to policy differences seriously.
Is that Michael Voris guy some relation of Rod Blagojevich, or do they just go to the same hairdresser?
But in hating him, you bring shame on our Church and on this wonderful institution – Notre Dame.
Posted by: Ethel Farslowe at March 27, 2009 11:29 AM
———————————————————
Ethel,
I was with you down to the ‘hating him’ part. I can not speak for the other commenters but I can honestly say, “I do not hate PBHO.”
I hate what he represents, and I am not referring to the USA. He is the POTUS, but he is not ‘my’ president. I do not claim him. He does not represent me. I respect the office he currently holds, but I have to grit my teeth and hold my nose. His very presence is the stench of death and dying.
The administration of Notre Dame is solely responsible for inviting PBHO to speak and making the foolish decision to confer on PBHO an honorary law degree.
Honoring a fool is folly of the highest magnitude.
Mr. Obama claims in one breath to be a committed christian and in the next breath he breathes lies. He actively resists those who would defend and protect the weakest and most dependent among us.
The shame is on those ‘leaders’ who claim to know GOD but fall over themselves to be associated with him, with no regard to the godless barbarism he represents, simply because he is POTUS.
I repudiate and disavow PBHO and all the wickedness he represents.
It is written in the ‘book’:
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness…”
yor bro ken
Wow. Thanks Jill for posting these. The commentary is great! Go Michael Voris!
I agree, Michael is having a bad hair day but his commentary
is brilliant!
Thanks for posting them. We’ve certainly not heard anything
nearly as cogent in the MSM.
On another note, it can be frustrating when good threads
get hijacked by stuff that should be on Facebook.
For those who are interested:
The (ND) students have begun a campaign of protest against Fr. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame. Their participation in a national campaign that will mail red envelopes to the White House has been changed to send the letters to Fr. Jenkins.
“This envelope represents one child who died because of an abortion,” read the envelopes. “It is empty because the life that was taken is now unable to be a part of our world. This envelope was going to be sent to President Obama on March 31. However, as he is scheduled to receive an Honorary Doctorate of Laws Degree from Notre Dame on May 17, we ask that you deliver it to him on our behalf at that time.”
from American Papist blog.
Sounds like a good idea.