The story:

SAN ANTONIO — Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.

The response:

Yesterday, Senator John McCain said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.” The Republican presidential hopeful also called Hagee “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement,” citing the minister’s pro-Israel stance.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this today:

“There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but are not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed, for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’

Hagee, to put it mildly, is an unpleasant fellow – I went over to McCain’s website to see if there was more on this, and so far I haven’t even found it mentioned. I hope that Senator McCain will address this issue – but I am also quite confident, due to McCain’s past actions vis a vis Catholicism, that he doesn’t in any way, shape or form agree with Hagee’s views of the Catholic Church. My bet is that McCain was aware of Hagee’s staunchly pro-Israel stance, and that is what McCain was thinking of in obtaining this endorsement.

In general terms, I never engage in a fight with my brothers and sisters in Christ – and even though I view Hagee as terribly wrong, I won’t even fight him on this. I’ll pray he’ll allow God to enlighten him on the truth of these matters, but I see no profit in fighting a fellow Christian – however erring – when the whole of religion is under attack in our nation. I understand, and respect, Mr. Donohue’s position and agree that such things need to be brought up, and condemned, but in my view there is a need, also, for a careful understanding of the real stakes in 2008; Hagee’s influence is relatively small, and no matter how destructive he might be, he won’t do nearly the damage that a President Obama or a President Hillary will do.

UPDATE: Given that our lefties are trying very hard to pick a fight between McCain and Catholics over this, I think it worthwhile to bring up Catholics for McCain; there are quite a lot of my fellow Catholics who are enthusiastic backers of John McCain and this is a much stronger indicator of McCain’s views about Catholicism than the fact that the anti-Catholic Hagee endorsed him.

UPDATE: John McCain responds to the firestorm:

Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.

Of course, it would have been better if the endorsement had never happened – but it did happen, and one can’t undo the past; meanwhile, we don’t want to alienate those followers of Hagee who are sincere, if misguided, Christians who do want what is best for America and the world. This is the best way around it all – making lemonade out of the lemons, as it were.

Seems that a liberal can’t crawl enough before it:

ROME, FEB. 27, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Senator Barack Obama’s claim that it was a “mistake” to vote in favor of an attempt to save the life of Florida woman Terri Schiavo is a statement that “dismisses life,” said her brother.

Bobby Schindler, the executive director of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, told ZENIT today that the senator’s comment “dismisses life in favor of death.” Schindler is in Rome to participate in the Pontifical Academy for Life’s congress titled “Close By the Incurable Sick Person and the Dying: Scientific and Ethical Aspects.”

Schindler also received an award today on behalf of his parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, from the Italian Movement For Life and Science and the association Life Rome for the couple’s efforts to fight on behalf of their daughter’s life, whose death was induced by the court-ordered removal of her feeding tube in 2005…

…During a presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday with Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama said of his vote in favor of the attempt to save Schiavo’s life: “It was not something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped.

“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. As a constitutional law professor I knew better. I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”

Given the number of times Obama has votes “present” or failed to vote at all, I can’t see where he think that “inaction” is a bad thing. For all of Obama’s rhetoric about hope all I can see in him now is the spindly, decayed finger of despair – a hideous malformation of hope, which has twisted itself into being the advocate of hopelessness – thus the utter degradation of modern liberalism.

Contrast this nauseating sell-out of basic human decency to John McCain’s views:

There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity. Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain’s value system and will be the guiding principles of a McCain Presidency.

If you are pro-life, there is only one person to vote for in November.

Just astounding:

London, Feb 26, 2008 (CNA).- A committee in the British House of Commons will investigate Catholic schools following the Bishop of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” education, the Independent reports.

Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, had circulated a 66-page booklet instructing Catholic schools to stop “safe sex” education. Bishop O’Donoghue wrote, “The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and AIDS, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information.”

Additionally, he told the schools not to support charities that support abortion. He singled out Amnesty International, which recently renounced its neutrality on abortion and now favors the abortion of children whose mothers were raped in war zones.

The government’s investigating committee is chaired by Labour Party member Barry Sheerman, who is reportedly concerned the Church is adopting a “fundamentalist” line.

“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” he added. “We seem to have a shift in emphasis on the ground despite what the reasonable voices of the leadership are saying,” Sheerman said.

Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable? This is the thing which is really bothersome about this – a politician is going to bring pressure on a religious body to toe the government line because the politician has arrogated to himself the right to decide what is reasonable, and what isn’t. Now, if Mr. Sheerman thinks the Church wrong; that is fine. If Mr. Sheerman thinks that the Church is so wrong that it should not receive any government funding in Britain, then he may move a bill in Parlaiment to do just that. But to use a government committee as an attempt to browbeat the Church into doing the secularists’ will, that is an abominable infringement upon the rights of the people.

Chesterton said a very long time ago that, in the end, there is the Church, and her enemies – and Mr. Sheerman is demonstrating this to us in very stark terms. It isn’t enough for the Sheermans of the world to have all sorts of taxpayer funded programs to promote the leftist agenda – arrogantly self assured about their moral superiority, lefists insist that no one be allowed to dissent from their worldview. Britain, like the rest of Europe, is far gone down the road to socialist slavery – but this is the sort of world that the left wants to bring to the United States; a government controlled world of enforced political correctness. You want it, you can have it – all you have to do is “hope for change” in 2008, rather than learn and think.

Well, when someone said that the GOP governor of Alaska is sharp as a tack, and a babe, I just had to take a look – and correct on both counts:

Challenges lie ahead, but let’s look back at the last year and at some accomplishments. In Education, we are shaping a three-year funding plan to finally shift the school debate from perpetual “money talk” to accountability and achievement! We are focusing on foundational skills needed in the “real-world” workplace and in college. In Natural Resources, we’ve opened arms to welcome development – but only responsibly, or not at all. Thanks to those abundant resources we will be able to provide for the urgent needs of our citizens. In Revenue, Alaskans ushered in a new era of stability with ACES, our new oil and gas appraisal system. It will provide protection even when oil prices aren’t as high as they are now. Ronald Reagan warned, “Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.” I agree and that’s why we must save our surplus. My administration is proposing $7 billion dollars into the Permanent Fund, Constitutional Budget Reserve, the Education Fund and PERS/TRS debt relief. In Fish and Game, we are managing our fisheries based on science, not special interests. Alaska’s predator control program is showing results with greater wildlife populations so more Alaskans can hunt and feed their families the world’s healthiest, cleanest protein on God’s green earth. In Environmental Conservation, our Climate Change Sub-Cabinet has begun working on ways to adapt to impacts and we’re implementing the voter-mandated Ocean Rangers program. In Administration, we redesigned technology for government efficiency and transparency, including our nearly-complete online checkbook, showing Alaskans where their money is spent.

A lot of this relates, of course, to Alaska issues, but the Reaganism is loud and clear, and not just in the wonderful Reagan quote; free markets, free people, responsible stewardship. As for the “babe” judgement – picture available here.

McCain could do far worse in his Veep selection.

Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO’s The Corner:

Most Americans simply cannot imagine their president as the topic of a two-hour encomium by Farrakhan, or why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers would have once been associated with him. Those are legitimate issues, and the Obama campaign needs to come up with a comprehensive defense against them before they arise: e.g., “All sorts of diverse people are attracted to various causes under the umbrella of social change; what distinguishes Obama is his singular devotion to working within the system and avoiding the extremism that plagues the movement.”

Until there is some systematic preemptive exegesis, I think more and more of these disturbing hard-Left embarrassments will turn up — none of them alone a problem; all of them in sum finally devastating.

Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President. If this is true, then so be it – but I don’t think it is. What this means for Obama is that he’s going to be running in a center/right America as a liberal/left politician. As long as Obama can keep it to high sounding rhetoric, all is well – but just as soon as Obama is forced down into the nitty gritty of politics, his liberalism will prove an obstacle to winning.

Americans are tired of Iraq – but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?

Americans are tired of the mess in health care – but do Americans want socialised medicine?

Americans are tired of endless government debt – but do Americans want tax increases, or would they prefer spending cuts?

These are the sorts of questions we are going to answer between now and November and while Obama can, perhaps, answer them in a way which leads to his being sworn in on January 20th, 2009, the plain fact of the matter is that it won’t be easy – especially not easy against a seasoned campaigner like John McCain, who is popular, highly respected and has a vastly more substantial resume’ than Obama.

The dratted snow is entirely messing up this global warm….errr, I mean…climate change thingy:

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

Looking out from my neighborhood, I’ve noticed that Mt. Charleston has a much thicker snow cover than usual (yes, we’re in sight of snow here in the Las Vegas valley) – started snowing up there earlier, and has snowed up there far more often than I’ve seen over my 13 years in Las Vegas. Heck, even the hills behind my house have received several dustings of snow this winter.

I wonder what it all means? Oh, I know – it doesn’t matter; more snow = climate change. Less snow = climate change. Higher temperatures = climate change. Lower tempuratures = climate change. The perfect theory of everything – climate change.

Stephen Spruiell over at NRO has gathered quite a collection of e mails from military personnel – past and present – who dispute Obama’s assertion of ill-equipped US troops – a sample will do for here, but you should go check them all out:

I am an Infantry Captain. I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, OEF 4 (2003-2004) and OEF 7-8 (2006-2007). In the army, we don’t split up units like that; the quote about 15 guys from a rifle platoon bound for Afghanistan getting sent to Iraq is utter nonsense. Not enough ammunition? are you nuts? No soldier leaves Bagram Airfield without a Basic Load, 210 rds of 5.56 (7 full magazines).

As to the statement about humvees, early in OEF there was a shortage of vehicles, specifically up-armored ones — the IED threat was still relatively new at that time. During my last deployment with 2-87 Infantry (3D BCT, 10th MTN DIV) that took place from January 2006 until May of 2007, every soldier in our task force was equipped with state of the art equipment, and plentiful amounts of it. We fired veritable mountains of ammunition during combat operations, and always had more on hand. Vehicles were plentiful, as were the resources required to maintain (the REAL challenge!) them.

US Soldiers do not use enemy weapons or equipment under most circumstances (Special Forces and assorted secret squirrel guys sometimes do). Think about it: why would I train up on a weapon system, zero the optic so that I hit what I aim at, maintain it etc. and then trade it in for an AK47?

What do we do with captured Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Haqqani/Waziri equipment? We turn some of it over to the Afghan police (what is serviceable, which usually isn’t much) and Afghan army units, but the majority is destroyed.

I seriously question the veracity of the “Army Captain” referred to. Most disturbing to me about this incident is it illustrates how clueless Obama and his staff are when it comes to the military. Prepared to be the CIC indeed.

The only part of Obama’s story which survives some scrutiny is the part where he says a captain was in command of a platoon – platoons aren’t commanded by captains, but we give the benefit of the doubt and say that the captain was a lieutenant when he was sent to Afghanistan – other than that, Obama’s story is proving to be pure fiction, just on the practical aspects of it, especially in that no one has ever heard of a platoon being divvied up between different theaters.

The central issue here is not the story, as such, but the fact that Obama believes it – which indicates he is entirely clueless as to the composition and employment of the United States military he aspires to command. Without question, John McCain is the better man to be Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces – while qualification to be CinC should not be, in and of itself, determinative of whether a person becomes CinC, it is a very important aspect of the job, especially in the very dangerous times we live in. And while military knowledge is not vital to be President, Obama’s lack of such knowledge also brings up his general lack of executive experience, as well as real-world knowledge – in short, Obama has never really had to do anything strenuous or risky on his own part in order to obtain the position he holds, and the position he aspires to.

The question before us – if Obama secures the nomination – is whether or not we, the people of the United States of America, are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications? There is, perhaps, a chance that a President Obama will be a quick study and become a competant President, but if he is elected he will be the first man so positioned in at least a century – even comparitively unqualified JFK had some command and real world experience in his Navy days during WWII; Obama has nothing to recommend him except a good speaking style.

Not sure if Obama will really want this one:

Washington DC, Feb 20, 2008 (CNA).- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama has been endorsed by Frances Kissling, the former president of the pro-abortion group Catholics for a Free Choice.

In an article written for the Huffington Post, Kissling defended her endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton saying that his presidency would finish the “social transformation” begun by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

“While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama’s instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation,” Kissling said.

Kissling broke ranks with other feminists who favor abortion rights but have endorsed New York Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. She said that both candidates would appoint Supreme Court justices who favor Roe v. Wade, overturn the Mexico City policy that forbids funding for non-governmental organizations that also perform abortions, and restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which lost US funding after its co-operation with coerced abortions in China was exposed…

…”It is no longer about ‘winning, the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify,” Kissling concluded. “That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness … I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that,” she said.

Abortion on demand is part of our call to greatness? What a horrid sickness it is, a position in support of abortion – completely dehumanizing in the worst possible way. At any rate, Kissling is correct in her assertion that both Hillary and Obama will follow a pro-abortion-fanatic line, but I’m not sure that either of them needs this sort of endorsement – there is that wool which needs to be pulled over the public’s eyes on abortion, after all, and someone coming along and pointing out – as if its a good thing – that Obama will even go as far as helping out baby-butchering in China might not help Obama pretend to be other than a ultra-liberal extremist.

Ah, nothing like the thesis of a liberal (PDF) for intersting items:

…My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my “Blackness” than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong…

Stokely Carmichael and Charlie Hamilton’s (1967) developed definitions of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the forumlation and use this concept in this study:

The concept of Black Power rests of this fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it must close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralistic society.

Thus, Carmichael and Hamilton define separationism as a necessary stage for the development of the Black community before this group integrates into the “open society”.

All really good liberal mental gobblydegook – the sort of “thinking” which you get when you are just repeating back what a leftist told you. Trouble is, this lady might be the person who gets first and last crack at advising the President of the United States every day. I guess Michelle Obama doesn’t have as much pull in 2008 as Hillary had in 1992 in getting her thesis locked away. I wonder, however, what we might find in any thesis written by Barack? Would there be, for instance, anything like Michelle’s assertion that black (errr…I mean Black) politicians are to pretend to be working with Whites when they are actually advancing the Black community?

…They discuss the problems which face these Black officials who must persuade the White community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just Black people…

Its going to be a very fun and interesting fall campaign…

Obama is, quite simply, not up to the task of heading up American foreign policy. In statement after statement, Obama has shown that he’s unaware of the realities of world politics as well as America’s position in the world – and John McCain is calling him on it:

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on Senator Obama’s remarks on Cuba during last night’s Democratic debate:

“Not so long ago Senator Obama favored complete normalization of relations with Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Last night, he said that as president he’d meet with the imprisoned island’s new leader ‘without preconditions.’ So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections.

“Instead, Senator Obama says he would meet Cuba’s dictator without any such steps in the hope that talk will make things better for Cuba’s oppressed people. Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill.”

This is Obama hoping for change – he hopes that if he meets Raul Castro, there will be change. This is an amazingly ignorant view of the true state of affairs in Cuba, where Raul Castro has played the heavy for older brother Fidel for nearly a half a century. Legitimize Raul, and all you’ll do is tighten the shackles on the people of Cuba. It is time, Senator Obama, for Cuba to be free – which means you should agree to meet with Raul only after he’s opened up his nation to the light of liberty.