Patum Peperium

Lech Walesa makes Thatcher, Reagan and Pope John Paull II proud.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

Lech Walesa, 2 days ago:

 

The storm over US President Barack Obama’s label “Polish camp” for a Nazi German Holocaust site is an ideal moment to halt lies about the Holocaust, Poland’s ex-leader Lech Walesa said Wednesday.

“This is a golden occasion to end this once and for all. Let’s use this chance to stop this from happening again around the world,” the communist-era dissident leader who later served as Poland’s president told the rolling news channel TNV24.

 

President Obama, this morning:

WARSAW, Poland — President Barack Obama has written a letter to the Polish president expressing “regret” for an inadvertent verbal gaffe that caused a storm of controversy in Poland this week.

“In referring to ‘a Polish death camp’ rather than ‘a Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland,’ I inadvertently used a phrase that has caused many Poles anguish over the years and that Poland has rightly campaigned to eliminate from public discourse around the world,” Obama wrote. “I regret the error and agree that this moment is an opportunity to ensure that this and future generations know the truth.”

“The events of the past few days and the U.S. president’s reply may, in my opinion, mark a very important moment in the struggle for historical truth,” President Bronislaw Komorowski told reporters.

 

This is not how Obama wanted this to end. Not that it is ending. It's not ending because of Lech, or even Poland. It's not ending because of Obama and his freedom destroying policies. Watch and read on while mulling the already "crushed hopes" of Obama's presidency...

.

 

 

President Obama Shuns Lech Walesa
The Polish Solidarity leader is “too political” for the administration.

By Rory Cooper

Lech Walesa was once a trade-union activist. He was often arrested for speaking his mind against Communist oppression behind the Iron Curtain in Poland and for defying the Soviet Union. He was an electrician who, with no higher education, led one of the most profound freedom movements of the 20th century — Solidarity. He became president of Poland and swept in reforms, pushing the Soviet Union out of his homeland and moving the country toward a free-market economy and individual liberty. And President Obama doesn’t want him to set foot in the White House.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said  no.

Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later.

Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism.

This revelation follows an eruption of outrage in Poland after President Obama referred in his remarks at the Medal of Freedom ceremony to “Polish death camps,” a phrase that Poles have battled since the end of the Cold War. The phrase suggests that Poles were complicit in Nazi concentration camps, which of course is not the case. In fact, Poles were exterminated in the camps.

The White House’s flippant response to the uproar caused the Polish president and prime minister to demand more thoughtful and personal reactions. But White House Press  Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president has no plans to reach out to his Polish counterparts and has shrugged off the outrage in Poland.

Few observers are suggesting that President Obama’s written remarks noting “Polish death camps” were intentionally malicious. The comment was more likely a result of historical ignorance and careless inattention. This is the same ignorance and carelessness that would cause a president  to turn away Lech Walesa and label him as “too political.”

Ironically, Lech Walesa shares a distinction with President Obama: They both won Nobel Peace Prizes. Walesa earned his in 1983 after years of fighting for peace and freedom, and being monitored, harassed, and jailed for it. President Obama received his award in 2009. Some may think that this would be enough of a bond for President Obama to set aside political differences for the greater good. But instead, President Obama treated Walesa the same way he treated the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who was ushered out the White House kitchen past piles of garbage in 2010.

The likelihood is that President Obama didn’t want Walesa in the White House because Walesa has made critical remarks toward the president’s policies and in 2010 warned that the United States was slipping toward socialism. But rather than taking the mature and diplomatic path and respecting Walesa’s right to have a differing perspective, Obama chose to shun his lifetime of achievements.

Congratulating Walesa on his Nobel Prize in 1983, President Ronald Reagan said: “For too long, the Polish government has tried to make Lech Walesa a non-person and destroy the free trade-union movement that he helped to create in Poland. But no government can destroy the hopes that burn in the hearts of a people. The people of Poland have shown in their support of Solidarity, just as they showed in their support of His Holiness Pope John Paul II during his visit to Poland, that the government of that nation cannot make Lech Walesa a non-person, and they can’t turn his ideas into non-ideas.”

The White House should not treat President Walesa as a non-person, and they cannot turn his ideas into non-ideas

 

 

.

The Weakness of Tyranny

Dec 28, 2011

George Weigel

Blessed John Paul II loved the Christmas season. Guests in the papal apartment during his pontificate found the seasonal decorations up early in Advent; and, following Polish custom, they stayed up until Feb. 2, the feast of the Presentation of the Lord. The Christmas meal was traditionally Polish. Every year, John Paul would call his lay friends in Cracow, all assembled in one apartment, and they would sing Polish carols together for hours, over the phone.

Thirty years ago, however, the season took on a more somber tone. For on the night of Dec. 12-13, 1981, the Polish state, through the Polish army, invaded Polish society and imposed martial law throughout the country. There was no provision for martial law in Poland’s communist legal code, so what the Jaruzelski regime declared was, technically, a “state of war.” It was a fitting phrase, if unintentionally ironic.

On Christmas Eve, John Paul II placed a lighted candle in the window of the papal apartment, a gesture of solidarity with an international initiative begun in Switzerland by two clergyman, to protest the communist attempt to crush the Solidarity movement. The papal World Day of Peace Message for Jan. 1, 1982, condemned “the false peace of totalitarian regimes” and at the Angelus that day, the Pope asked everyone to pray for Poland, for what was at stake there was of great importance, “not only for a single country, but for the history of man.”

With the benefit of 30 years of hindsight, it now seems clear that the imposition of martial law in Poland in December 1981 was not an act of strength but one of weakness, by a regime so incapable of commanding the allegiance of those in whose name it claimed to rule that it could only compel obedience by violence. It took some time for this to become clear in Poland, a country frequently burdened by crushed hopes; John Paul’s second pastoral pilgrimage to his homeland, in June 1983, did a lot to raise the spirits of his countrymen—who rallied their energies such that, by 1987, the Pope could spend his third pilgrimage home laying the cultural and moral foundations for a post-communist Poland, which was born two years later in the Revolution of 1989.

Two days after the imposition of the “state of war,” President Ronald Reagan hosted a lunch at the White House for the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli. As I report in The End and the Beginning, it was Cardinal Casaroli who, over the course of a 90-minute discussion, took the Realpolitik view: however unfortunate martial law might be, there were likely reasons of state that compelled General Wojciech Jaruzelski, concerned about a possible Soviet invasion to crush Solidarity beneath Red Army tank treads, to behave as he did. And it was Ronald Reagan who, speaking in the tones of John Paul II, was the voice of moral outrage over this latest usurpation of Polish liberties. As the historical record now makes clear, John Paul and Reagan had it right, and the veteran Vatican diplomat had it wrong: there was no invasion threat in December 1981 (although there had been one in December 1980); the Jaruzelski regime was a hollow, if brutal, shell; the power of moral conviction, aroused, could be an effective antidote to communist tyranny, forging hitherto unimagined and effective tools of resistance; there was nothing permanent about the post-Yalta division of Europe.

The lessons, 30 years later? Solidarity’s triumph ought not be universalized as a one-size-fits-all model for coping with tyrants. Still, John Paul II’s instinct for reading history through cultural lenses has much to commend it. Politics and economics are important. What drives history over the long haul, however, is culture: what men and women cherish, honor, and worship; what men and women are willing to stake their lives, and their children’s lives, on.

The truest realism, therefore, is one shaped by truths and ideals, not only by calculations of power. If you doubt that, ask General Jaruzelski.

.

 

 

Let Poland Be Poland

From the depths of history, from murky lands,
From eternal forests, fields, and steppes.
Our people, our beginning,
From Piast, Krak, and Lech.


A long chain of human beings
United by a simple thought:
That Poland, that Poland,
That Poland be Poland.

When an unknown fate
Scattered us to the corners of the earth.
When foreign winds chased
Foreign eagles on banners.

At the hearth there would burst out
an overwhelming and familiar note:
That Poland, that Poland,
That Poland be Poland.

A pupil threw down a portrait of the czar,
Father Sciegienny offered his prayers
Drzymala fixed up his wagon,
Norwid wrote proud verses.


And whoever could hold a sword
would organize army legions
That Poland, that Poland
That Poland be Poland.

Mothers, wives, in dark huts
Would sew on banners
The slogan: `Honor and the Fatherland'
And faith would set forth into the field (of battle)


And faith would set forth into the field
From Chicago to Tobolsk
That Poland, that Poland
That Poland be Poland.

 

.

That America be America, honor Lech Walesa in the White House, let the free be free, let Catholics be Catholic....

.

 

Is Jan Karski trying to get another message across to the world?

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

 

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

-- Senator Obama at the Brandenburg Gates, July 2008

 

From Scott Johnson:

 

I first learned of Karski’s story in Walter Laqueur’s The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth About Hitler’s “Final Solution,” published in 1980 (and first learned of Laqueur’s book from George Will’s excellent column on it in the Washington Post that year).

Laqueur notes that Karski patiently submitted to his detailed questioning in a September 1979 interview and even wrote out for him the message that he (Karski) conveyed to President Roosevelt, Anthony Eden and others in 1942 and 1943. According to Laqueur, the message could not be published during the war. Karski’s message is included in Appendix 5 to Laqueur’s book. Laqueur comments elsewhere in the book:

Democratic societies demonstrated on this occasion as on many others, before and after, that they are incapable of understanding political regimes of a different character….Democratic societies are accustomed to think in liberal, pragmatic categories; conflicts are believed to be based on misunderstandings and can be solved with a minimum of good will; extremism is a temporary aberration, so is irrational behavior in general, such as intolerance, cruelty, etc. The effort needed to overcome such basic psychological handicaps is immense….Each new generation faces this challenge again, for experience cannot be inherited.

 

,

September 2011:

 

In New York magazine this week, John Heilemann contends that President Obama is the “best thing Israel has going for it right now” and despite some setbacks he remains a president “every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister — and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.”

The cover story‘s attention-grabbing, Toni Morrison-esque characterization of Obama as “The First Jewish President” comes from a quote by Abner Mikva, a White House counsel, who during the run-up to the last presidential election said, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” While Heilemann thinks that prediction “has so far proved to be wildly over-optimistic,” he believes there is “more truth in it than meets the eye.”

In the piece, Heilemann chronicles Obama’s various struggles in his policy making over Israeli-centric issues. Despite Obama being “well attuned to the Jewish community and its views”, his wrangling with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his support of Israel’s 1967 borders “with mutually agreed [land] swaps” and Ed Koch‘s high profile criticism has left some Jewish voters under the impression that he wasn’t fully on their side.

Heilemann strongly disputes this by saying “Obamans have never wavered in going balls-out for Israel”

 

At the White House just an hour or so before the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony via Haaretz:

Earlier Tuesday afternoon, Obama and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew met about 20 Conservative Jewish community leaders. ...

"I not going to tell you again how I even feel about Israel, but why [are] we still talking about it," Obama said, reminding his guests that all his friends in Chicago were Jewish - and at the beginning of his political career he was accused of  being a puppet of the Israel lobby. ...

Obama also stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it - and wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel [sic] about their support to Israel."

.

As in England where private schools are called public, in Judiasm, liberal rabbis are called conservative.  YNET gives an excellent window to the "conservatism" of the assembled rabbis at the White House :

 

Obama to rabbis: I'm vilified because of Muslim name.

U.S. president tells group of Conservative Movement leaders Republicans falsely portraying him as being unsupportive of Israel.

During the meeting, one of the rabbis told Obama that he has a gay son and thanked the American leader for publicly supporting gay marriage.

"The president shared his sense of personal connection to the State of Israel and his deep knowledge and appreciation of Jewish tradition,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly (RA), which is the international umbrella organization for Conservative rabbis...

 

Again from Haaretz, the "vilified" president who knows more about "Judiasm more than any other president", demonstrates his deep knowledge of all things Jewish while awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom (posthumously) to the man who provided the first eyewitness account to the world of the Nazi atrocities and crimes against Jews and others, Polish resistance fighter Jan Karski :

 

Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.

 

This morning:

 

AP WARSAW, Poland -- Poland's leaders said on Wednesday they weren't completely satisfied with a White House explanation that President Obama misspoke when he referred to "Polish death camps" during a ceremony honoring a World War II hero, saying they wanted a stronger response.

The phrasing is considered hugely offensive in Poland, where Nazi Germany murdered Poles, Jews and others in death camps it built during World War II on Polish and German territory. Poles have responded with outrage, saying Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland" to distinguish the perpetrators from the location.

President Bronislaw Komorowski said he has written to Obama and hopes the letter will lead to a "joint correcting of the unfortunate mistake" that could prevent the use of such phrases in the future.

"In my opinion, the words of the U.S. president -- unjust and painful to us all -- about a Polish death camp, do not reflect either the views or the intentions of our American friend," Komorowski told a news conference.

White House spokesman Jay Carney yesterday reiterated the administration's earlier assertion that Obama simply misspoke when he referred to "Polish death camps."

"This was a simple mistake and we regret it," he said. "It was Nazi death camps that the president was referring to."

Carney said Obama had not spoken to Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

Earlier, Tusk said he was accepting a White House explanation that Obama "misspoke" but was still waiting for a "stronger, more pointed reaction" that could eliminate the phrasing "once and for all." Tusk said it was a "matter of the U.S.'s reputation." He hinted it should include facts about Nazi Germany's brutal occupation of Poland, during which 6 million Polish citizens were killed, half of them Jews.

Stressing that the entire Polish nation felt affected by Obama's words, Tusk said: "We always react in the same way when ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions lead to such a distortion of history, so painful for us here in Poland, in a country which suffered like no other in Europe during World War II."

"When someone says 'Polish death camps,' it is as if there were no Nazis, no German responsibility, as if there were no Hitler   -- that is why our Polish sensitivity in these situations  is so much more than just simply a feeling of national pride," Tusk said.

 ;

James Taranto, this morning:

In a lengthy (7,000-word) feature for New York magazine, political journalist John Heilemann provides an intimate, and not altogether flattering, look into Barack Obama's re-election campaign. We were especially struck by this quote (the elision of naughty words is ours, not Heilemann's):

"Romney really, actually thinks that if you just take care of the folks at the top, it'll trickle down to everybody else," says another Obama operative. "But no one believes that stuff--no one! And once you puncture that, there's nothing left. He's not likable. He's not trustworthy. He's not on your side. You live in Pittsburgh and you've got dirt under your fingernails, who do you want to have a beer with? It ain't f---ng Mitt Romney. You're like, 'Sh--, I'd rather have a beer with the black guy than him!' "

 

Yesterday Obama posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, a member of the Polish resistance in World War II. The honor was well-deserved. Karski--who later came to America, naturalized, and taught at Georgetown University--crossed enemy lines in 1942 and reported back to the West on the atrocities in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Nazi death camps.

Only in the president's remarks yesterday, he referred to them as "Polish death camps." That expression is neuralgic for Poles, who quite understandably do not wish to shoulder blame for horrors that an occupying power carried out on their soil. The White House website now carries a correction over the Obama transcript: "* Note--the language in asterisks below is historically inaccurate. It should instead have been: 'Nazi death camps in German occupied Poland.' We regret the error."

Poland's leaders want to make sure of that. [...]

 Further, as our colleague Matthew Kaminski points out, the Karski award had already occasioned some tension between Washington and Warsaw:

The Poles wanted Lech Walesa to receive the medal on Karski's behalf, but the White House nixed the choice. Last year, during Mr. Obama's visit to Poland, the hero of Solidarity refused to attend a large gathering to meet the younger leader. Mr. Walesa felt entitled to a tete-a-tete. Administration officials told Polish journalists Mr. Walesa's presence was too "political" for this week's occasion. Poles read something else into it: Mr. Obama holds grudges. The counter snub was the talk of Poland last week.

 

May 27 2011:

 

Lech Walesa cold shoulders Obama: the US president is clearly no Reagan.

Lech Walesa, the great hero of the Polish Solidarity movement, was in Washington earlier this week to receive the Ronald Reagan Centennial Award. He gave a terrific speech, which I attended, in which he referred to Cuba, one of the last remaining Marxist tyrannies, as a “Jurassic Park of Communism”. Walesa remains one of the great political icons of our time, a brave freedom fighter who stood up to the Soviet Empire and led his people to liberty.

It has been announced that Walesa has decided not to meet with Barack Obama during the president’s visit to Poland. He has declined an invitation to join a group of Polish leaders in Warsaw tomorrow who will greet the president. Walesa is reportedly traveling to Italy for a biblical festival instead, and told Poland’s TVN24:

It's difficult to tell journalists what you'd like to say to the president of a superpower. This time I won't tell him, I won't meet him, it doesn't suit me.

I can see why Mr. Walesa has declined to meet with Barack Obama. The Obama administration’s approach to Poland, an important US ally, has been largely dismissive and lukewarm. In contrast to George W. Bush, who went out of his way to build friendships in eastern and central Europe, Barack Obama has paid little attention to ‘New Europe’, and has been far more interested in appeasing the Russians and “resetting” relations with Moscow.

President Obama famously threw the Poles under the bus when he announced that the United States would not proceed with Third Site Missile defences planned for Poland and the Czech Republic, and has largely treated the Poles as an afterthought in his drive to improve ties with the Kremlin and secure the New START Treaty. Obama has at times demonstrated extremely poor judgment when it comes to US-Polish relations, even playing golf during the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady, and 94 senior officials who perished in the Smolensk air disaster. The US president was unable to travel to Krakow for the funeral due to the grounding of flights over Europe at the time following the volcanic eruptions in Iceland, but he could at least have acted with dignity and respect at such as sensitive moment.

As I noted at the time:

It is hard to think of anything more insulting to the Polish people on the day they mourned the loss not only of their president but much of their political and military leadership, for the president of the United States to be enjoying a round of golf after canceling plans to attend the funeral. It is yet another disgraceful example of crass insensitivity to a close American ally, which has become the hallmark of the Obama administration’s amateurish foreign policy.

But above all, I imagine that Lech Walesa is not meeting with President Obama because he knows the current occupant of the White House is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a true friend of the Poles, who fought hard for their liberation in the face of Soviet tyranny. The Gipper believed in strong US leadership, in standing up to America’s enemies, and in the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with America’s allies. President Obama’s “leading from behind” approach is the antithesis of Reagan’s foreign policy, and one which has frequently undercut US alliances rather than strengthened them.

On March 26, 2012, an open mic between Obama and the outgoing Russian president gave the Poles even more of a reason to believe Obama will undercut their interests, yet again, should he get a second term:

 

 

 

Yesterday Lech Walesa has told the president what he needs to do, now:

 

The storm over US President Barack Obama’s label “Polish camp” for a Nazi German Holocaust site is an ideal moment to halt lies about the Holocaust, Poland’s ex-leader Lech Walesa said Wednesday.

“This is a golden occasion to end this once and for all. Let’s use this chance to stop this from happening again around the world,” the communist-era dissident leader who later served as Poland’s president told the rolling news channel TNV24.

 

Halting the lies about the Holocaust should be among Obama's top foreign policy concerns:

.

 

May 16, 2012:

As we noted yesterday, the celebratory tone of a senior Iranian figure about all his country has achieved in the negotiations with the West should scare those Americans who have been speaking with confidence about the Obama administration’s determination to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Despite the brave talk from the president, the Iranians are right to think they’ve got him on the run. Since the Iranians have crossed every red line intended to halt their progress, they can’t be blamed for thinking that the next round of talks or the ones that follow as the process drags out over the summer will ultimately lead to Western recognition of not only the legitimacy of their nuclear program but also their right to refine uranium. Indeed, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in charge of the talks and with France no longer led by a president who is committed to a strong policy on Iran, it is difficult to imagine any other outcome at this point.

All of which puts the public concerns expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the negotiating process that provoked the scorn of President Obama and much of the chattering classes in both the United States and Israel and in a very different light. Though the consensus in the foreign policy establishment is that much more time must be given to let diplomacy work, if this is the direction in which the talks are heading, Netanyahu is to be forgiven for thinking the Iranians have played the West for suckers.


President Obama took umbrage when Netanyahu said that it appeared that the first round of the P5+1 talks resulted in negotiators giving away “freebies” to Tehran’s envoys. But with Iran virtually declaring victory even before the next scheduled gathering in Baghdad later this month, that may turn out to be a generous evaluation.

This also lends credence to those who believe President Obama never had any attention of taking action on the nuclear threat but was merely talking tough for the benefit of pro-Israel voters while the diplomatic process enabled him to stall until he is re-elected and thereby have the “flexibility” to accept a policy of containment. This thesis holds that the only purpose of the talks was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran on its own.

However, if we accept the premise that the president is sincere in his desire to forestall an Iranian bomb (the point of view championed by Jewish Democrats and other Obama admirers), the coming talks present a peculiar challenge for the administration.

President Obama has taken great pride in having assembled an international coalition to oppose Iran, but now that this group is involved in talks with Iran, he is also its prisoner. The United States may have no intention of acquiescing to Iran’s demands about refinement or stepping back from the harsh sanctions that were belatedly placed on Tehran. But if the EU, Russia and China are all prepared to accept a deal that will enable Iran to continue its nuclear program, the president is going to be faced with a difficult choice. He will either have to repudiate the deal that Ashton and the other parties want to cut with Iran (and thereby embrace the sort of American unilateralism that he sought to replace when he succeed President Bush) or go along with something that he knows will present a grave threat to U.S. security. And, contrary to both the hopes of his friends and the fears of his detractors, he may not be able to put off crossing his Iranian Rubicon until after the election.

The only way to avoid such a choice is to do something that the president is equally uncomfortable with: exercising international leadership. Allowing Ashton it run the show in Baghdad is very much in keeping with the president’s predilection for “leading from behind.” But unless he gets directly involved in this process, he is going to be stuck with an indefensible deal that will give the lie to every statement he’s ever made on Iran. The coming weeks will tell us a lot about whether the president meant what he said about Iran or if he is able or willing to derail a negotiation that is heading inexorably toward an Iranian triumph.

 

Before Obama said Polish death camp, he already had a serious credibility issue with Poland. Poland is viewing him  the very way the Obama re-elction campaign wants Americans to view Mitt Romney -not trustowrthy and not on their side.  With the Polish death camp remarks and refusal to apologize, Obama is only cementing their beliefs. Obama would be wise to listen to Lech Walesa and use his "simple mistake" to put an end to the lies of the Holocaust. This would not only rebuild trust with Poland and increase his support among Jewish voters, it would improve his relations with Israel. It is a win-win-win for Obama. A win-win-win would ultimately help him win re-election.

If Obama lacks the character and good will to listen to Walesa, the world would be wise to listen to Jan Karski.

 

 

.

 

 

Our Nobel Peace Price-winning President saunters into the East Room, opens his mouth and offends 38 million Polish.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

.

May 27, 2011 President Obama laughs with members of Warsaw's Jewish community including Holocuast survivors at the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial.

"He joked with elderly guests, asking one to reveal his secret to living to be 90 years old."

"'He needs to tell me what to eat,' Mr. Obama said through a translator. 'He looks so good."

 

 

 

Scenes of how they ate in the Warsaw Ghetto.

 

Hey everybody, have you heard the new Polish joke?

It has the 38 million people of Poland in hysterics. Due to its brilliance it deserves a proper setup. The setup goes like this...

In 2008 America held a presidential election like it always has every 4 years. But this presidential election the world was told was unlike any presidential election ever before. From November 18, 2008:

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS (American presidential historian) : Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years….

DON IMUS: Well. What is his IQ?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people that smart and that capable….

DON IMUS: What is his IQ?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Pardon?

DON IMUS: What is his IQ?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Uh…..I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

Yesterday, the "very serious and capable leader" whose "IQ is off the charts" and the "smartest guy ever to become President" sauntered into the East Room to award (posthumously) Jan Karski the Presidential Medal of Freedom and said,

Jan served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II. Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.

So the new Polish joke is,

Never forget that President Obama walked into the East Room to honor a WWII  Polish Resistance fighter and said Polish death camp.

 

.
June 5, 2009

President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, Mr. Wiesel, and Mr. Herz (both former prisoners of Buchwald) lay white roses at the crematorium ovens.

 It is astonishing (and historic) a Nobel Peace prize winner uttered the words Polish death camp. Especially when that same Nobel Peace prize winner uttered it while honoring a man who risked his life to provide one of the first eyewitness accounts of what was happening in those Nazi death camps to the world.

 

.

After the war, Jan Karski emigrated to America, became an American and a professor of History at Georgetown.

Georgetown must be so proud of Obama today.

 

 

 

Jan Karski

 

Only this morning  did I become aware of of Detroit' connections with the Catholic Polish Resistance fighter Jan Karksi. A worthy read on such a rare man from Detroit's Polish Times:

National Holocaust Remembrance Day is also on May 1, and the Holocaust Memorial Center in Farmington Hills, Michigan is having a special program at 1:00 pm. The Hidden Children and Child Survivors Association of Michigan will be featured along with other survivor groups.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust will be celebrated. Families of victims will be in attendance and victims will be remembered with "Never Forget" being the watchword.

There are many other Detroit connections in the stories of efforts to thwart the Nazi activities of the holocaust.

The Kuras family tree of Metro Detroit is but one journey touching the Shoah (Hebrew for Holocaust). There are Kuras family members that grace the rolls of Righteous Among the Nations but also first person accounts of immersion with the graces of St. Maximilian Kolbe. The Polish Patriot Jozef Kuras had relatives here also and the anecdotes of the fantastic journeys of Jan Karski had links.

Polish villagers Kristyna Kuras, Karol Kuras, Zofia Kuras and Joanna Kuras were related to the Kuras families on Junction Avenue, Cecil Avenue and St. Hedwig Street in Detroit. During the war in Poland, Kristyna hid and fed two Jewish survivors in the forest until being outed by a local drunkard. The Nazis summarily executed her and her family for her charitable efforts. The State of Israel named them into the family of Righteous Among the Nations in 1993. The Righteous Among the Nations designation is an acknowledgement to people who lost their life saving Jewish lives during the Holocaust.

They were also related to Jozef Kuras, the Ogrien Partisan (Fire) leader in the Zakopane Region of Poland. Jozef Kuras had direct contact with the Polish Diplomat Jan Karski during his perilous travails.

[giant snip]

Another Kuras relation in Poland, Jozef Kuras, was the partisan commander in the Zakopane region and headed up the Ogrien Brigade (Fire Brigade). He was summoned to Krakow to meet with Jan Karski (aka- Jan Kanicki and Jan Kozielewski). Karski’s older brother was a Polish police chief in the Krakow area. They planned Karski’s escape to tell Churchill and Roosevelt about the horrors in the Warsaw Ghetto. Karski was eventually able to tell both Churchill and Roosevelt in person about the death factories and extermination centers. It was much too late for most.

Leon Feiner and Menachem Kirschenbaum both Jewish underground leaders in Poland met with Karski. Karski, who had perfect retention of his meetings with the Polish-Jewish Patriots, recalled the conversations. Kirschenbaum had said, “Nobody could ever understand the horrors that had befallen the Jews.” He was crying. Feiner calmed Kirschenbaum and said to Karski, “You Poles are also suffering. But after the war, Poland will be restored. Your wounds will slowly heal. By then, however, Polish Jewry will no longer exist. Hitler will lose this war, but he will win the war he has declared against the Polish Jews. You must get out our message.” (From “Karski: How One Man Tried to Stop the Holocaust”, John Wiley and Sons, Publishers)

Feiner went on to tell Karski, “But we know England, we know the West. What you are going to tell them is unprecedented. They may have doubts. It would help us if you could say that you saw it with your own eyes. We could smuggle you into the ghetto in Warsaw. There would be no danger whatsoever to you. I will be your guide. And we could try to smuggle you into the Belzec camp. This is dangerous but we wouldn't expose you to certain death. Will you go?”

After touring the Warsaw Ghetto, Karski donned a disguise to enter a Nazi concentration camp in Eastern Poland. There he witnessed mass murder. The World Jewish Congress supplied the money to bribe a Ukrainian guard to use his uniform for the masquerade. After visiting the Warsaw Ghetto he went back to the Krakow area and Kuras got him out of Poland into Czechoslovakia and then into France. The Nazis and Gestapo became aware of these activities and there were many Polish executions in reprisal.

Aleksander Kawalkowski was the leader of the Polish underground in France who helped coordinate Karski’s hazardous passage through that occupied zone.

It was in 1942 that Karski reported to the Polish-in-Exile, British and U.S. governments on the situation in Poland. Especially cited was the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Holocaust of the Jews. He had also carried from Poland a microfilm with further information from the underground movement on the extermination of European Jews in German occupied Poland.

Karski was captured and tortured twice by the Gestapo but managed to escape and eventually bear witness to the Nazi atrocities.

Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel said of Karski, “He was a man of absolute integrity, of extraordinary force of character. I had a feeling from the moment I saw him that he carried secret invisible wounds in him…….I saw he was fighting back the memories. These were perilous times.”

 

 

Jan Karski stands before a wall map of the Warsaw Ghetto at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1994.

 

.

.

History's most historic president becomes more historic : The University that once honored him is now suing him. Don't you love America?

 

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

.

 

.

Longtime readers of PP may recall the times when Father Jenkins of Notre Dame has been taken to the woodshed in this space. The S.S. Notre Damned and America, the Catholic Chickens are coming home to roost! being among those woodshed moments.

PP wasn't the only Catholic (mental) Institution or person to take Father Jenkins out to the woodshed for inviting Obama to his graduation speaker and give him a honorary legal degree. Many bishops, Archbishops and even Cardinals did as well. Some of their choicer woodshed soundbites:

.

"They made a big mistake.”

--Cardinal Dolan of New York

 

"Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation,"

-- Cardinal George of Chicago

.

"I am saddened and heavy of heart about your decision to invite President Obama to speak at Notre Dame University and even to receive an honorary degree.

"It is a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States."

-- Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona

.

."It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician. I hope that you [Fr. Jenkins] are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.”

--Archbishop Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

“If Notre Dame does not alter its present course, it will be difficult for me to offer support for the University on any level.”

--Bishop Barbarito of Palm Beach
 

"And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness.  Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement.  It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade."

-- Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia

.

“I find the invitation very disappointing. . . Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a ‘Teacher,’ in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.”

--Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston - Houston

.

There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it."

-- Archbisop Chaput of Philadelphia

"You have to sit back and get past the immediate moral outrage and say, ‘Now what’s the best thing to do in these circumstances?’"

-- Cardinal George of Chicago

.

“Notre Dame extended this invitation unilaterally, seemingly without regard for the consequences for the mission of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is contrary to the efforts of bishops, parish priests, and laity to resist the anti-life decisions, policies, and legislation promoted by the Obama administration.”

-- Bishop Lori of Bridgeport

.

"In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit.  It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses.  Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education.  Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square."

-- Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia

.

“I, along with other bishops throughout the country, fully support Bishop D’Arcy in this matter.”

--Bishop Taylor of Little Rock

.

 “[Fr. Jenkins,] I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University.”

 -- Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln

.

“This is Our Lady’s university choosing to give an honorary degree to the single most outspoken pro-abortion president since the issue was foisted upon the country by the Supreme Court. It must, indeed, embarrass Our Lady.”

--Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh

.

"In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

"I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

"The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

"That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue."

-- Bishop D'Arcy of  Fort Wayne-South Bend

.

. .

 

 

As the 2009 Graduation day luvfest photos demonstrate, none of the Bishops'  woodshed words penetrated Father Jenkins skull.  But since that fateful graduation day they must have. Yesterday Father Jenkins took his celebrate graduation speaker to court. Here's Father Jenkins' explanation for why he has done such a historic thing to such an historic president :

 

. . . Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about:  it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services.  Many of our faculty, staff and students -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives.  As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.  And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.  We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.  For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions.  For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements.  If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name. . . .

 

The healing of the terrible breach between Notre Dame and the Church has been underway for some time, without much notice from the media...

.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, left, was welcomed to Notre Dame by Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, president of the university.

.

ARCHBISHOP DOLAN AFFIRMS DIGNITY OF PERSON AT NOTRE DAME

Dcember 7, 2011

In the question-answer period following Archbishop Dolan’s lecture, an audience member cited a letter from Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame president, to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services. That Sept. 28, 2011, letter urged that the definition of religious employer in the rules for the new healthcare law be broadened to provide conscience protection. Father Jenkins noted that the current rules put Notre Dame in the “impossible position” of being required either to provide services and insurance coverage contrary to Catholic teaching, or to discontinue employee and student health care plans.

The questioner said that non-Catholics also attend and work for Notre Dame who believe that contraception and sterilization are moral. He asked how this “conflict between two consciences” could be resolved without offending the equal human dignity of either side.

Archbishop Dolan replied that he was “grateful” Father Jenkins had taken a “brave and courageous stand” on this issue.

“Our religion would require us to respect the rights of all and never to denigrate them,” he said. “However, it would also obviously require us to obey our own consciences and follow the allegiances of our own faith.”

With a “defined community” that stands for a given set of values, people expect that community to live out the demands of the faith it professes, Archbishop Dolan explained. So, it is not a judgment against people who do not share the faith, but rather an insistence on the rights of conscience and insistence that the government would never have the right to compel violation of conscience.

“That of course is not only a Catholic principle,” Archbishop Dolan said, but also a principle of our country. So, while Father Jenkins is making a religions claim, “He also is calling America back to its most cherished principles that never would we force someone or an institution to do something contrary to its conscience.”

 

.

Well done Bishops.

Well done Father Jenkins for hearing them.


 

Politics imitates art.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

Six Degrees of Separation, 1993

"An affluent New York couple find their lives touched, intruded upon, and compelled by a mysterious young black man who is never quite who he says he is."

 

 

President Obama, 2008 -

 

From Roger L. Simon:

 

Reading the extraordinary revelation about Barack Obama’s youthful literary career on Breitbart.com — that his agents published a promotional book in 1991 with a bio of Obama saying he was born in Kenya — set my old mystery writer mind ablaze.

How could that be? Why would they think such a thing?

There are only two forks in this road — either he was born in Kenya or he wasn’t.

I have never been a conspiracy theorist and will assume the latter, although I have to confess that for the first time, given this revelation, I have the tiniest soupçon of doubt.

Nevertheless, the more interesting, and actually frightening and depressing, conclusion is the former. So what if he was born in Kenya? At least we know why he lied about it. He wanted to be president.

But why did Obama’s agents think he was born in Kenya? That’s a more interesting question. (Obama, of course, is a liar either way.)

I will leave aside for the moment the question of whether he vetted the agent’s material himself. As the author of eleven published books and seven produced feature films, I have had plenty of dealings with agents and publicity people and always looked over the bios they had written about me. Every author I ever talked to about it always did too. We’re those kind of egotists. But I have no way of proving that Obama did — although I would faint if he hadn’t.

But whatever he did, the question remains. Why did they put “Born in Kenya” in his bio and leave it there until 2007? The latter part of that question can of course be ascribed to normal human sloth, but the first part — there’s the rub.

Here are the explanations I can think of:

Obama told them.
It was in some early draft of Obama’s abandoned book (Journeys in Black and White) he submitted to them.
Obama wrote it in his book proposal to them.
Obama told them in a query letter.
Obama answered one of those biographical forms.
… Well, I’m running out because they all amount to the same thing.

There is one other possibility. The agents simply made up the place of Obama’s birth, but I have never in all my life heard of a literary agent doing such a thing. It’s possible I suppose, but hardly likely. And why?

Anyway, per Occam’s Razor, I am going with the obvious — the agent’s source for Obama’s birthplace was… Barack Obama.

But again why? Why would he lie about where he was born?

Well, he might have wanted to glamorize his past, but if that’s so, it’s pathetic. I suspected there was a more substantive reason, one that would cause him to leave his African birth place in place in the bio. But to take the risk of being found out, it would have to be strong.

My wife Sheryl and I, like Nick and Nora Charles, discussed it over gimlets this evening. We both agreed the mystery lay somewhere in Obama’s college and university years at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. We knew, as you do, there must be an explanation for why the court eunuchs of the mainstream media have never bothered even to investigate the scholastic career of the most powerful person in the world.

Because Obama got bad grades? Yawn — so did Bush, Kerry, Biden, Ted Kennedy, and dozens of others who later found themselves making life or death decisions over our lives.

No, it had to be something more significant, more potentially dangerous. What if, we thought, as others have suggested, the reason Obama’s school records have not surfaced is that he enrolled, at one of those institutions at least, as a foreign student — a Kenyan?

But why would he choose to do that? Well, maybe for a grant, a subvention, a scholarship that was available uniquely to students from Africa or similar locales.

Yes, I know that’s not “fair,” in the lexicon of the Lord of Fairness, to have adopted a phony identity and deprived others of an opportunity they may have more richly deserved. But it would certainly fit with Obama’s early need to be recognized as a Kenyan by his agent and, presumably, his publisher. As we all know, it’s not the crime, but the cover-up. (In this case, actually, it’s both.)

As time went on, of course, college drifted away and politics reared its head. The Kenyan identity became less necessary, even a liability, so it was dropped.

I don’t know about you — but this makes sense to me. It also fits with the tomb-like silence around his college years.

But I could be wrong. After all, I am only a mystery writer and, worse yet, a screenwriter. The professional investigative journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times will no doubt dig deep and give us the true explanation.

But if they don’t, and I know you’re skeptical, we have to keep pushing, every one of us. We must learn the truth of this. We owe it to Andrew B. — and to our country.

.

Charlie Rose, the day after the 2008 election:

 

MEACHAM: I was very struck watching the stagecraft -- and this comes out again and again in the project -- in Grant Park [Chicago], he walks out with the family, and then they go away. Biden’s back, you know, locked in the bar or something, you know --

(Rose laughs.)

MEACHAM: They don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid -- he is the message.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this. I mean, he is such an admirable --

ROSE: ‘Slightly creepy cult of personality’?

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s ‘slightly creepy’ about it?

THOMAS: It just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He’s a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy -- you know, this could be a useful thing in a leader --

ROSE: How so is he ‘deeply manipulative’?

THOMAS: I think he's always in control, you know -- he controls events, events don't control him. He's a pretty calm guy. He seem to be able to get people to do pretty much what he wants.

ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes --

MEACHAM: Yeah.

ROSE: -- and he sort of -- it's almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.

MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.

THOMAS: Watching him!

ROSE: Exactly!

THOMAS: He does --

MEACHAM: It's amazing.

ROSE: It is amazing.

THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I'm not sure I am Barack Obama.

ROSE: Mmm!

THOMAS: He had -- he has the self-awareness to know that this creature he's designed isn't necessarily a real person, and he's self-aware enough --

 

Some Reviews of Six Degrees of Separation:

 

 This is a play about the supposed spiritual emptiness of bourgeois New Yorkers that was essentially written as a cathartic guilt trip for bourgeois New Yorkers—in other words, for the people who go to the theater. By the end, most moviegoers are liable to see it as much ado about nothing. - Entertainment Weekly

 

A rare sight: a sharply observed Hollywood satire of poignant ideas, such as opportunities in life, achieving fame in American society, and how we all are in one way or another con men. - Emanuel Levy

Ultimately, Six Degrees of Separation will succeed or fail for the individual viewer based on their expectations and preferences. -- Reel Views

 

It's too clever by half, an inside joke aimed at the New York gentry. -The Washington Post

 

 

.

Wither Georgetown?

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

 

MISSION STATEMENT OF

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

As the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States, founded and sponsored by the bishops of the country with the approval of the Holy See, The Catholic University of America is committed to being a comprehensive Catholic and American institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed on by the Church. Dedicated to advancing the dialogue between faith and reason, The Catholic University of America seeks to discover and impart the truth through excellence in teaching and research, all in service to the Church, the nation and the world.

(approved by the Board of Trustees, December 12, 2006)

 

 

123rd Annual Commencement Address
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York
East Portico, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
May 12, 2012

Cardinal Wuerl, our eminent chancellor;

President Garvey, officers of the administration and distinguished faculty; especially rightly radiant class of 2012, with your family and friends, now proud alumni of this venerable and renowned university:

Thanks for your gracious invitation and warm welcome; thanks for the honor you bestow upon me, in company with Father Julian Carrón, Giuseppe Mazzotta, Carmen Ana Casal de Unanue, and Joseph A. Unanue; thanks especially for being true to the noble mission of this great university; and thanks, class of 2012, for the hope and promise you give all of us. Congratulations!

You're welcome. I was in charge of the weather. This is the first time I have worn red since I was made a cardinal. I forgot my red sash. Luckily Cardinal Wuerl has an extra ... well, two extras.

I came to this University the same year Colonel Brooks Tavern opened. I may have spent more time there than Mullen Library.

I do this quite a bit — speaking at commencements. I enjoy it. This spring alone I have or will give three university commencement addresses, two at our high schools, one at an eighth grade occasion, and even an address at Pre-K graduation. Bring ‘em on! I love them!

But this one this morning is especially meaningful for me, as I myself am a proud and grateful alumnus of this institution of highest learning, having left here thirty years ago . . . and just finished paying my tuition . . . sorry to bring that up! . . .; and because I am deeply grateful, as a Catholic, and as an American, for the iconic value of this, The Catholic University of America.

Just six days ago, Pope Benedict XVI, in addressing bishops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, spoke warmly of Catholic education here in the United States, and of the need of our Catholic colleges and universities “ . . . to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service to the Gospel.”

The Holy Father showed a somber realism, though, when he expanded that need to include “ . . . ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate, becoming all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership . . .”

Is not a big part of our gladness and pride this happy morning of graduation a grateful recognition that this university does indeed exude such “ecclesial communion and solidarity?” That this university is both Catholic and American, flowing from the most noble ideals of truth and respect for human dignity that are at the heart of our Church and our country? That a university’s genuine greatness comes not from pursuing what is most chic, recent, or faddish, but what is most timeless, true, good, and beautiful in creation and creatures? That the true goal of a university is to prepare a student not only for a career but for fullness of life here and in eternity?

Some might wonder if Pope Benedict’s description of a university is way too impractical; if a university can be really Catholic and American; if the genuine freedom a university demands can flourish on a campus whose very definition includes a loyalty to Holy Mother Church . . . well, to them I say, as you and I did, “Let them come to Brookland!” This university you can now, with me, call alma mater, at the heart of our nation, is also ex corde ecclesiae, at the heart of the Church. For that I am most proud.

The Holy Father mentions not only truth as being at the core of the mission of a Catholic university, but also love. And so I want to tell you about a wonderful woman named Clara Almazo. Just a little over a month ago, Clara and her little eight year old grandson, Michael, were walking home from Holy Thursday Mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish on Staten Island. As they crossed the street, a car barreled toward them, with little Michael in the crosshairs. His abuela, Grandma Clara, pushed her grandson away to safety, taking herself the whole force of the car, and was instantly killed.

Clara’s selfless act of heroic love was, as you might imagine, the tearful talk of New York over the Easter weekend. No one failed to note that her life-giving act was made the more poignant as it came on the night before Jesus died, returning from the Mass of the Lord’s Last Supper, when He predicted His own sacrificial death, and where he gave the touching example of selfless service in washing the feet of His apostles.

When I celebrated her funeral on Easter Tuesday, every one of her 13 children and 23 grandchildren were profoundly sad; but not one of them was surprised, for through their sobs, they told me she was a woman of constant, heroic, selfless giving.

Jesus Christ . . . His Church . . . this university . . . Clara Almazo . . . truth . . . love . . . the words of Pope Benedict . . . the achievement and the hopes of the Class of 2012 . . .

Let me try to bring all of these together with the coherence I learned at this University.

Might I suggest these all coalesce in what we call the Law of the Gift.

“Greater love than this no one has, than to give one’s life for one’s friends.” There’s the Law of the Gift as defined by the Son of God Himself.

“It is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.” There’s the Law of the Gift as chanted by St. Francis.

"I know Jesus Christ, who sacrificed His life for others. I understand well the meaning of the cross. I am ready to give up my life for my people." There's the Law of the Gift as stated by Shabaz Bhatti, a Catholic who served as federal minister for religious minorities in Pakistan.

“For we are at our best, we are most fully alive and human, when we give away freely and sacrificially our very selves in love for another.” There’s the Law of the Gift as described by Blessed John Paul II.

Not long ago at a dinner I sat next to Admiral Mike Mullen, a Marine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, himself a Catholic, who asked me, “What percent of the American population is Catholic?”

I replied, “I'm not sure exactly but I think about 24%.”

“But do you realize,” he went on, “that 40% of the Marine Corps identify themselves as Catholic?”

I did not realize that, but I was not surprised, nor was Admiral Mullen, for at the heart of the Church’s ethos is the Law of the Gift, and it would be tough to be a Marine — or to be an abuela like Clara Almazo — if you didn’t believe in that.

Or, as the head of the department of pediatric oncology at a leading hospital recently told me, “Cardinal Dolan I’m not even a religious believer, but, when I hire doctors, nurses, attendants, or staff for this grueling work of trying to heal kids with cancer, the applicants who are alumni of Catholic school have a leg up.”

I didn’t know that either, but, I’m hardly surprised, for, while it’s sure not listed in any catalogue, the course on the Law of the Gift is part of the DNA of any Catholic school, this sterling one included.

So, I conclude that all of you, at this university where every classroom features the most effective audio-visual aid of them all, the crucifix; and where the entire campus is overshadowed by the dome of the shrine devoted to the Jewish woman who whispered, “Be it done unto me according to your will, not mine,” that I’m looking out at graduates who have majored in this Law of the Gift.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m hardly claiming that Catholics have sole “bragging rights” on fostering, protecting, and obeying this Law of the Gift. The exaltation of selfless, sacrificial love and service is at the marrow of every religion, and, as a matter of fact,on the ground floor of most purely humanistic values.

However, even our critics admit that a particularly pointed contribution that religion, that the Church, that faith makes to any enduring culture, society, or nation is that it has a honed talent to foster, protect, and obey the Law of the Gift.

Without the Law of the Gift we have no Marines, fewer effective pediatric oncologists, and no Clara Almazos or Shabaz Bhattis. Religion, faith, the Church promote a culture built on the Law of the Gift. Thus, wise people from Alexis de Tocqueville to John Courtney Murray — both of whose work I was forced to read while a student here — have observed that an essential ingredient in American wisdom and the genius of the American republic is the freedom it allows for religion to flourish. Thus would I predict that a challenge you, class of 2012, will inevitably face is the defense of religious freedom as part of both our American and creedal legacy.

Now, one final thing: You all had a head-start in learning the Law of the Gift and the importance of faith to sustain it.

For, see, the Law of the Gift is most poetically exemplified in the lifelong, life-giving, faithful, intimate union of a man and woman in marriage, which then leads to the procreation of new life in babies, so that husband and wife, now father and mother, spend their lives sacrificially loving and giving to those children. That union — that sacred rhythm of man/woman/husband/wife/baby/mother/father — is so essential to the order of the common good that its very definition is ingrained into our interior dictionary, that its protection and flourishing is the aim of enlightened culture.

And your tutelage in the Law of the Gift, class of 2012, was only refined here at this Catholic University, for it began in the most sublime classroom of them all, your home and family, under the most significant of all professors, your mom and dad. Congratulations, parents of our graduates!

That we are at our best when we give ourselves away in love to another — the Law of the Gift — is I’m afraid, “counter-cultural” today, in an era that prefers getting to giving, and entitlement to responsibility; in a society that considers every drive, desire, or urge as a right, and where convenience and privacy can trump even the right to life itself; and in a mindset where freedom is reduced to the liberty to do whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever, however, with whomever we want, rather than the duty to do what we ought . . .well, the Law of the Gift can be as ignored as a yellow traffic light in New York City.

At one of the eighth grade commencements I attended, as referred to earlier, the fourteen year old student speaker called his classmates to pay attention to the words of John F. Kennedy, fifty-two years ago, observing that the temptations he and his classmates were facing now is to ask what your family, your friends, your church, and your country can do for you, rather than what you can do for them.

Not bad advice at all, leading me to conclude that this parish grade school was also granting degrees in the Law of the Gift.

So, I praise God that I look out at graduates in admiration, affection, and appreciation among whom are new Clara Almazos, children of beaming parents, alumni of a university where goodness, truth, and beauty reign and where every student majors in the Law of the Gift.

Congratulations, class of 2012!

 

...

.

MISSION STATEMENT OF

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Georgetown is a Catholic and Jesuit, student-centered research university.

Established in 1789 in the spirit of the new republic, the university was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding. We embody this principle in the diversity of our students, faculty and staff, our commitment to justice and the common good, our intellectual openness and our international character.

An academic community dedicated to creating and communicating knowledge, Georgetown provides excellent undergraduate, graduate and professional education in the Jesuit tradition for the glory of God and the well-being of humankind.

Georgetown educates women and men to be reflective lifelong learners, to be responsible and active participants in civic life and to live generously in service to others.

...

.

STATEMENT BY JOHN J. DEGIOIA ON THE 2012 GPPI TROPAIA
May 14, 2012

In recent days on the Georgetown University campus and in the larger American Catholic community, concerns have been expressed by some who object to an invitation to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to participate in a Public Policy Institute awards ceremony during the University’s commencement weekend.

Last fall, public policy students expressed preferences for potential speakers who could participate in the program. Given her role in crafting the landmark legislation that will make health care more accessible to 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured, Secretary Sebelius was identified by students as a leading policy maker in our country who could contribute to this event. Secretary Sebelius has a long and distinguished record of public service, including two terms as governor of Kansas before beginning her service in April, 2009, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. She is also the spouse and the mother of Georgetown graduates. 

In early January, an invitation was extended to Secretary Sebelius and she accepted.  In the weeks that followed, elements of the legislation, specifically terms covering contraception, dominated our public discourse and impacted our Georgetown community very directly.

In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 “Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration.  Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB.  It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the January 20th announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations.

The Secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views.  As a Catholic and Jesuit University, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings.

We are a university, committed to the free exchange of ideas. We are a community that draws inspiration from a religious tradition that provides us with an intellectual, moral, and spiritual foundation.  By engaging these values we become the University we are meant to be.

...

 

Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington Regarding the Selection of U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius as a Featured Speaker at Georgetown University

May 15, 2012

During the past week there has been much in the national and local news regarding the controversial selection of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to be a featured speaker at an awards ceremony at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. Yesterday, the President of the University, John J. DeGioia, issued a public statement in response to the concerns, objections and even outrage that have been expressed.

The Archdiocese of Washington reserved public comment to permit Georgetown University and its sponsor, the Society of Jesus, the opportunity to address the controversy. While the explanation of how this unfortunate decision was made is appreciated, it does not address the real issue for concern – the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history and the apparent lack of unity with and disregard for the bishops and so many others across the nation who are committed to the defense of freedom of religion.

Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the HHS mandate is not about contraception. As the United States Bishops have repeatedly pointed out, the issue is religious freedom. Secretary Sebelius’ mandate defines religious ministry so narrowly that our Catholic schools and universities, hospitals and social service ministries do not qualify as “religious enough” to be exempt. This redefinition of religion penalizes Catholic organizations because they welcome and serve all people regardless of their faith. Ironically, because of Georgetown’s commitment to open its doors to Catholic and non-Catholic students alike, the university fails to qualify as a religious institution under the HHS mandate.

Given the dramatic impact this mandate will have on Georgetown and all Catholic institutions, it is understandable that Catholics across the country would find shocking the choice of Secretary Sebelius, the architect of the mandate, to receive such special recognition at a Catholic university. It is also understandable that Catholics would view this as a challenge to the bishops.

It is especially distressing to think that the university’s Public Policy Institute would be unaware of this national debate since the mandate was published last August. Such a radical redefining of ministry should prompt Georgetown, as a Catholic and Jesuit university, to do more to challenge the mandate and speak up for freedom of religion.

 

.

Talk about withering...

Obama goes Gay for Pay, black women and children hurt the most.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

.

"No matter who you love or what God you worship, you can still pursue happiness -- I will support you every step of the way,"

and

"You can be stylish and powerful too."

President Obama to the 2012 graduating class of Barnard College.

 

  From Tammy Bruce:

 

The following revelation come from a dinner conversation at a fancy restaurant last night (she’s a 1percenter, I’m proudly Friends with 1percenters ;) In the midst of some complaining about Obama, the conversation naturally turned to him becoming Gay for Pay, a phrase normally used for heterosexual young male hustlers who are willing to sleep with men if the price is right. Obama’s sudden support for gay marriage, and the fundraising-mania surrounding his confession, makes the phrase unfortunately apt for the Preezy of the United Steezy.

That said, we then wondered why Obama would really do it. We know he doesn’t give a damn about the issue, and oh sure, he’ll get a bit more cash from the left, but it really won’t even make a dent in what he wants to fund-raise or plans on spending...

 

 

"...You know part of it was also just knowing friends and family, people that I’d gotten to know who had these wonderful relationships and they’d say to me you know what? The words matter. So even though you’re a strong supporter of civil unions somehow it still says we’re different and that particular set of conversations that I had is ultimately what led me to this conclusion."

President Obama on The View.

.

From Forbes:

In the days following his endorsement of gay marriage, President Obama is doubling down on efforts to attract LGBT donors with the help of gay celebrities and a network of high-profile gay and lesbian supporters. His calendar this month and next is filling up with gay-centric events poised to rake in millions for his re-election efforts. [...]

The Washington Post recently combed through the list of top Obama bundlers — that is, those bringing in more than $500,000 — and identified as many as 1 in 6 as openly gay. [...]

While bundlers play a crucial role, LGBT activists have also seen an increase in donations at the grassroots level. [...] Much of this money was donated online, where Obama’s team is hoping to capture the youth vote. His campaign is capitalizing in an uprising of LGBT support in its web store, where a $30 ‘I’m Out For Obama’ t-shirt is creeping up the bestsellers list.

Equal rights advocates say interest in, and contributions to, the Obama campaign from the gay community will only increase in the wake of his gay marriage endorsement. “Some in the LGBT community have been hesitant up until now,” said Sean Eldridge, senior adviser at Freedom to Marry, who has had conversations with the President and his team on the gay marriage issue in the past. “Now that he’s come out in full support, that hesitation is gone. Gay and lesbian activists are all in now, on every level.”

 

.

 

Falsani: Do you believe in sin?

Obama: Yes.

Falsani: What is sin?

Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.

Chicago Sun-Times interview, 2004.

.

 From Fox News:

.

Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, wrote in a blog on May 9 that Obama’s statements is worthy of incurring wrath of biblical proportions.

From McKissic’s blog:

President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Bible is crystal clear on this subject, and the Black Church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His endorsement is an inadvertent attack on the Christian Faith. America is now a candidate for the same judgment received by Sodom and Gomorrah. This was a sad, sad day and a very bad decision, by our beloved President. The moral impact of this day and decision is equal to the military impact of AL-Queda when they attacked the Twin Towers on 911. Today’s announcement is a moral earthquake equivalent to a tsunami or hurricane that will have far more devastating results than Katrina.”

.

From TheNYTimes:

About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex marriage last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself. He had struggled with the decision, he said, but had come to believe it was the right one.

The ministers, though, were not all as enthusiastic. A vocal few made it clear that the president’s stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his re-election.

“They were wrestling with their ability to get over his theological position,” said the Rev. Delman Coates, the pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., who was on the call.

In the end, Mr. Coates, who supports civil marriages for gay men and lesbians, said that most of the pastors, regardless of their views on this issue, agreed to “work aggressively” on behalf of the president’s campaign. But not everyone. “Gay marriage is contrary to their understanding of Scripture,” Mr. Coates said. “There are people who are really wrestling with this.”

In the hours following Mr. Obama’s politically charged announcement on Wednesday, the president and his team embarked on a quiet campaign to contain the possible damage among religious leaders and voters. He also reached out to one or more of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past.

The damage-control effort underscored the anxiety among Mr. Obama’s advisers about the consequences of the president’s revised position just months before what is expected to be a tight re-election vote...

 

 

From Juan Williams:

 

Last week the First Husband and First Daddy, better known as President Obama, was asked if losing next year’s election would devastate him.      

“I’m sure there are days when I say one term is enough,” he told The Today Show. “Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said ‘You know what guys I want to do something different,’ they would be fine. They are not invested in Daddy being president or my husband being president.” [...]

Whatever one’s political disagreements with President Obama may be, Republicans, Independents and Democrats -- all Americans -- can take pride in the fact that they have a President who is a devoted husband and loving father. As a dad he is a national treasure, a visual icon to remind us of the importance of fatherhood and family.

This President stands as a defiant daily contrast to the pop culture message that wealthy, strong, successful men are unattached to families. He is also a father who puts the lie to the image of fathers as dummies -- the bumbling, barely tolerated dads all over TV from Peter Griffin in ‘Family Guy’ to Homer Simpson.

Even if you can’t stand his policies, President Obama has consistently offered the nation the image of an intelligent, successful man who puts being a good husband and father first.

And the fact that he is a good father who leads a black family is even more important because the rate of absentee fathers in the black and Hispanic community amounts to a national crisis. [...]

President Obama made the importance of fatherhood a continuous theme of his 2008 presidential campaign that culminated in his election as the first black President of the United States.

It is very much to his credit that Obama has not abandoned his commitment to fatherhood as President -- both in his own life and in setting policy for the nation.Three years ago, Barack Obama spoke before a packed congregation at Chicago’s Apostolic Church of God, one of the largest black churches in the city. Then a candidate for president, he issued a clarion call about the need for black men to meet their responsibilities as husbands and fathers. [...]

On this Father’s Day, we can celebrate the president’s example and his wise words about fatherhood. America’s churches, schools and civic organizations all need to join in meaningful action to increase the number of good fathers...
 

 

Tammy Bruce again:

 

That said, we then wondered why Obama would really do it. We know he doesn’t give a damn about the issue, and oh sure, he’ll get a bit more cash from the left, but it really won’t even make a dent in what he wants to fund-raise or plans on spending. None of the swing-states at risk during the election were hanging by a thread on this issue (to say the least), and in fact this will likely hurt him in at least North Carolina and Virginia.

Then it dawned on me–Obama’s internal polls must show him losing to Romney, and handily. The latest Rasmussen certainly show the Golfer-in-Chief in trouble and behind the GOP nom. He must realize it’s over and is now simply looking to establish his “legacy,” while reinforcing leftist relationships he desperately wants to keep–like with Hollywood–after we kick his ass to the curb. For an obsessed, cynical and narcissistic president like Obama, he only makes moves that serve his agenda one way or another–and the only upside to this exists out of the White House. Liberal gays will vote for him anyway, and 1 in 6 of his top bundlers have already raised $500,000+ for him. I believe he’s frantic to not have his legacy be the truth–one of disaster brought by narcissism and incompetence, he hopes this sort of story, covers like Newsweek, will be the thing that allows him to walk away at least within his liberal/leftist base as not a complete pariah.

Even more telling–throughout this conversation in the table next to us were a couple of gay men. When I declared my realization that Obama knew he was out, it was, well, a little louder than I would have liked. The two fellows next to us looked over, and as I expected some snarky remark back, they both just looked depressed and then down at their very French appetizers. They knew, too, that they were being played by Obama and that as gays we were all now being saddled with a gigantic “gay friendly” failure of a Preezy.

 

.

 .

.

.