PINE BLUFFS - On November 11, 2008, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, announced that U.S. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama called Pope Benedict to thank him for his congratulatory telegram. The call responded to a telegram the Holy Father sent to Obama after he won the presidential election November 4.

          According to Zenit, a news agency specializing in coverage of the Holy Father, in his papal telegram the Bishop of Rome promised Obama his prayers so that God would assist him in his “weighty responsibilities at the service of the nation and the international community.” And it expressed Benedict’s wish that the Lord's blessings support Obama and the American people, “together with all men and women of good will, [in efforts] to build a world of peace, solidarity and justice.”

          A congratulatory telegram from the Pope does not mean the Vatican approves the results of the election, which saw the most pro-abortion administration in U.S. history take the reigns of power. Heads of state routinely send congratulatory messages to winners of major elections in other countries. The head of the Vatican City State does, too. Nor does it mean that Pope Benedict XVI and the Church hierarchy will sit idly by while Mr. Obama follows through on his promise to overturn 300 plus pro-life laws and restrictions enacted during the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, by passing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act. 

          Just days after Rev. Jay Scot Newman handed a letter to his parishioners at St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, Greenville, SC, telling them that if they voted for Mr. Obama they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion, because the Democrat president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil,” the Church began mobilizing to deal with this new and alarming situation. 220 Catholic Bishops met in Baltimore and drafted a statement warning the President-elect that passing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be viewed as a direct attack on religion.

          It seems that back in July 2007, Mr. Obama announced to a Planned Parenthood audience that signing FOCA would be his first priority: “Well, the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act . . . On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” Now, with his Party in full control of Congress, Obama will be pressed to live up to his promise as payback for the abortion community's support. If successful, the newly expanded majority might even overturn the partial-birth abortion ban, which a Republican Congress passed twice, only to see it vetoed by former President Clinton. It was through the efforts of President George Bush that this abhorrent practice was finally ended.

          Catholic bishops have offered to work with the incoming Democrat administration on numerous issues. But the defense of life is not one of them. “This is not a matter of political compromise,” Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio said. “It's a matter of absolutes.” Might the church's forceful opposition to FOCA be the excuse some Catholic Democrats in Congress need to vote the legislation down? We’ll see.

          Several prelates promised to call to account Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights. “I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church,” Martino said.

          Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians “can't check [their] principles at the door of the legislature.” Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who champions abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance. “They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn,” Naumann said.  

          Also at risk is the Mexico City Policy, a policy originally announced by President Reagan in 1984 at an international population conference in Mexico City. It required that to receive funds under the population control aid program overseen by the Agency for International Development (USAID), private overseas organizations would henceforth have to agree not to perform abortions, except to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest, and not to promote abortion as a method of family planning — by campaigning to weaken or repeal the pro-life laws of foreign nations.                

          When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he overturned this policy by Executive Order. But on George Bush’s first day as President he delivered on his campaign promise to re-instate Reagan’s Mexico City directive. Mr. Obama? His long-standing pro-abortion record, going back to his days in the Illinois State Legislature where he even opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act at the state level, and later at the federal level, points to what may be in store for us.

          If for no other reason, Congress should take seriously the Bishops’ warning because Roman Catholics are powerful players in the U.S. health care system. Catholics run approximately 550 hospitals and over 400 clinics in America. The Church spends billions to help the disadvantaged obtain their needed care. Under FOCA, religious providers would have two options: either comply with the abortion mandate or end their services completely.

            Would Mr. Obama and a Democrat Congress be so intent on appeasing Planned Parenthood that they’d close down the entire Catholic hospital system? Would they have the power to do it? With a pro-choice Democrat occupying the White House, and majorities in both Congressional bodies, only a slim 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court and the necessity to raise 60 votes to cut off a Senate fillibuster stand in their way. James Madison, speaking on January 30, 1788, said: “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny.”

          Do Roman Catholics really understand? Do they care? The election is over and the voters have spoken. Catholic voters appear to have made a huge mistake in judgment. An AP article on November 13, 2008 citing national exit polls said: “54% of Catholics chose Obama …”  Don’t the statements of Bishops Martino, Naumann, and others apply equally to all Catholics?

            Saddened by this situation, Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, Director of Human Life International, wrote in HLI’s e-Newsletter on November 14, 2008: “Now that the election is over, we can separate the real Catholics from those who just act the part. Those still reeling from the results of the election can rest assured that they are in good company with the saints. Those who have drawn a line in blood and made a decision to stand with the culture of death need a serious examination of conscience… America has made her ‘choice’ for maximum leader and it is not pretty. In fact, it’s one of the most devastating blows to American civilization that we have ever undergone, and I do not speak in hyperbole. Even such a saintly figure as Mother Theresa said that ‘a nation that kills its children has no future;’ likewise, an authority like Fr. Benedict Groeschel recently commented that we have entered into ‘the beginning of the twilight’ of our country - dire words that touch on the reality of electing the most extreme, pro-abortion candidate America has ever had the misfortune of occupying the highest office of our land.”

          It could’ve been worse. The voters did not give Mr. Obama such a decisive victory that he can claim a mandate to advance a radical social agenda. What exit polling confirms is that this election was driven by the economy and a loss of confidence in the Republican Party. Despite what some in broadcast and print Media may claim, the country is not lurching leftward socially. Exit polling commissioned by Family Research Council (FRC) asked voters where “moral values” ranked in their list of priorities. In the 2004 election, 22% rated moral issues as their first priority when voting. On November 4, 2008, in the midst of the greatest economic challenge in many years, 20% still cited “moral issues” as their first or second priority.

          So while we congratulate Mr. Obama on his victory and pray for his safety, Roman Catholics – those who do NOT just act the part - must be there to remind him daily that values aren’t just among the issues; they are the most important issues.” We cannot sit idly by while a president who does not respect life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death reverses the hard-fought gains we’ve made, and advances policies attacking human life.  

      Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine,  the Wyoming Catholic Register, and Triond.com.  E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit the original source of this article at Triond.com.   

PINE BLUFFS - The Presidential Election of 2008 – 21 months of charges and countercharges, exaggerations and distortions, outright lies and twisting of facts - is a thing of the past.

          The Media tell us we made history on November 4th by electing the first black President in our long, colorful existence. They conveniently overlooked the publicity they gave to liberals like black author Toni Morrison (aka Chloe Anthony Wofford) in 1998, and black Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus in September 2001), who, with perhaps a bit of overblown rhetoric, claimed that former President Bill Clinton was actually the first.

            That omission is neither here nor there. But Media bias cannot be overlooked as a contributing factor in this election. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, comments made on ABC, CBS, and NBC by sources, voters, reporters, and anchors over the two months immediately prior to the election reflected positively on Barack Obama 65% of the time, but on John McCain only 31% of the time. Nevertheless, despite these findings, Bernard Goldberg’s two books Bias and Arrogance, and the opinions of many people, including much if not all of Middle America, the Media are not biased. Members of the Media have told us so, and we “can trust” them.  

          And we can overlook its mistakes, too. Such as its constant drumbeat during the campaign that America’s youth would turn out in droves to elect Barack Obama. Obama was elected alright, but the youth did not turn out in droves; in fact the youth vote was actually less than it was in 2004. 

          Anyway, the election is over. The people have spoken. John McCain gave a very gracious, gentlemanly concession speech. Barack Hussein Obama is our President-Elect and will be our 44th President. Blacks are happy. Even though the city of Toledo issued riot gear to its entire police force – the idea being that if Obama lost, blacks would riot in the streets, and if Obama won, blacks would riot in the streets – election night appears to have passed peacefully.

          So, my first comment after the election is to offer congratulations to Obama and his supporters. I will now join the ranks of the loyal opposition, or as some are putting it, the Conservative underground. 

        As my friend Eric, a Conservative Jewish radio talk show host (yes, there are such people alive and well in the United States), and blogger extraordinaire put it a few days ago on his blog (See www.blacktygrrrrexpress.com): “There will be many days ahead where I will offer everything from analysis to criticism to self reflection. Today, as much as I am disappointed, I offer only congratulations. . . . Senator Barack Obama won this race fair and square. We can argue about merit and policy, and in the coming months we absolutely will. However, getting elected in politics is a game, and Barack Obama played it well enough within the established rules to win.”

            Here’s one thing I won’t do, and I hope all Conservatives will refrain from doing. I will try not to fall into that reflexive, mindless, knee-jerk hatred of a President that Liberals did. Directed toward George W. Bush from the inception of his presidency by such ultra-liberal organizations as MoveOn.org, Slate, and others, and venom-spewing individuals like George Soros, they attempted not just to prove his policies wrong, but to destroy at every opportunity a fine man who did much good for America during his 8-year term. Sadly, that venom was picked up and parroted by ordinary Democrats who do not follow politics closely and are often victimized by rhetoric from irresponsible sources.     

            Many are now asking, “How will Obama govern? From the Center? Well, yes, if you think that the Left is now the Center. Or, will he govern from the far Left? To get at least something of an answer now, it’s helpful to examine his political career, which includes his years in the Illinois Senate representing perhaps the most liberal (and corrupt) district in that State, his friends – such as Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Fr. Michael Pflaeger - who have influenced him most, his campaign promises, and his rhetoric.

          Let’s begin by looking at his election night acceptance speech. Obama touched all the bases – I’ve heard nine presidents give these speeches during my lifetime, so I know - the speech was standard boiler plate stuff. As they all did before him, Obama said that in a spirit of bipartisanship he’d reach out to Republicans and include them in his Administration. But the very next day, we saw that the first appointments to his Transition Team were all Democrats; all former Clinton transition team staffers. Not a Republican among them, and here, if he really wanted to display a bipartisan approach, was the perfect spot to do so. People on transition teams have very specific jobs to do and cannot hurt a president’s policies in any way).

          As for me, I’m happy that we live in a land where, as President Bush said the day after the election – and as I’ve written before - the peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our Democracy and a credit to our people. Karl Rove, a former presidential adviser to Mr. Bush and another man hated and persecuted by the Democrats because of his political effectiveness, put it well: “The masses are not asses!” 

          Bipartisanship? On Thursday, November 6, it was announced that Obama’s first major appointment – Chief of Staff in his future White House – would go to Rahm Emanuel, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2003, who represents Illinois 5^th Congressional District. That area covers the north side of Chicago and parts of infamous Cook County, which many believe, invented the lowest standards of political corruption in the country. A rabidly partisan Democrat, Emanuel served as Director of former President Clinton’s Finance Committee during Clinton’s first primary campaign. He proved an adept fundraiser, and still is, this time for Barack Obama, who raised $750 million, the most ever in the annals of presidential campaigns.

          Rumor has it that Emanuel mailed a rotting fish to a former Party co-worker after they parted ways. Can you imagine the message that must have sent to its recipient? And after the 1996 election, Emanuel was so enraged at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner, and in front of everyone, grabbed a steak knife, and began rattling off a list of “enemies” or betrayers (a la Richard Nixon’s enemies list, perhaps?), shouting “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead! and plunging the knife into the table after every name. His lack of bipartisanship earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo.” 

          Emanuel, a Jewish person who once supported the War in Iraq, left the White House in 1999 and took a well-paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort, an investment bank in Chicago from 1999 to 2002, where he reportedly earned $18 million. He was named to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) by then President Clinton, where he oversaw some, if not all, of the disastrous policies that brought about the financial crisis with which the country is now dealing.

          To be fair, however, some say Emanuel has aligned himself with the center-right of the Democrat Party since his election. He has been returned to the House every two years since 2003, by ever increasing voter majorities. Does this mean he might counsel his new boss to run a center-right Democrat Administration. We can hope.

          It’s interesting that the drive-by Media, which neglected its job of vetting Obama during this intolerably long and costly presidential campaign - no, actually championed his cause – now is being heard to say, quoting Tom Brokaw on the evening of the election – that “We don’t really know who Obama is.” What? All the Media had to do was assign a reporter to investigate his background. And it had 21 months to do it. Someone in the broadcast or print Media could have selected an investigative reporter from among the 41 the Media dispatched to Alaska to hunt through Sarah Palin’s trash digging for dirt about her. Or, they could have gone to any one of numerous websites such as mine, or listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Glen Beck, or other respectable Conservative talk show hosts, who attempted to do the Media’s job for it by bringing Obama’s background to the public’s attention.    

          On November 4th,  I watched Obama’s acceptance speech and considered it clever politics. As I said, he touched all the bases. Several things struck me, especially this one. Have you ever seen one where the successful candidate stood up there alone delivering his speech? No wife. No cute kids. No Vice-President, and his wife and family. Yes, I know they came onstage prior to, and they came back after, but during? Just him alone. I don’t know quite what to make of that. Egotistical? Narcissistic? Creepy?  We’ll see.

          In any event, governmental power is now firmly in the hands of the Democrats. That’s the way the people voted. Republicans cannot win every election. After winning seven out of ten previous elections, we got what we probably deserved. Given stewardship of the country beginning with both houses of Congress in 1994, we failed to exercise it responsibly and the voters saw that. Remember that famous quote of Lord Acton? “Power often corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” All Republican office holders were not corrupt. Some were. Earmarks point to that fact. John McCain promised to rid the federal government of “pork barrel politics,” and reduce the deficit once again to the balanced budget brought about by Newt Gingerich and his Contract with America in 1994. The voters didn’t think that was important enough to entrust Mr. McCain with the highest office in the land at this time. Will Obama cut government spending or raise it? Balance the federal budget or continue and even add to deficits? Raise taxes on the middle class or lower them? We’ll see.  

          One thing is clear: many of the people who will hold power in the new Administration will be leftists. Some of them are or have been members of the Hate America crowd. How will they govern? That’s a big question mark. The stock market suddenly seems to be concerned. Counting Election Day and the two days following the election, it declined substantially, incurring the largest losses ever experienced immediately after an election in American history. It has begun to rebound, but it will take months to recover to pre-election levels.

          The Media are spinning, spinning; it was the bad news about unemployment; it was the bad news about the economy; it’s the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan, etc. Of course, it was not the news that Obama, who previously promised to raise the capital gains tax, to raise taxes on corporations (you know, the ones that provide a large percentage of the jobs Americans depend upon), or that he was found to have said, earlier this year in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, that he intends to bankrupt an entire coal industry in order to cease our dependence upon coal as an energy source. That, for states like West Virginia and Wyoming, would be disastrous. Nor could it have been anxiety that an Obama Administration might nationalize all IRA, Keough and 401K funds, removing them from the capital markets in which they are now invested. Of course not.

          Barack Obama is seen by many as someone who wants to unite people. Is he? There is now talk among the Democrats of reprisals against those in the Senate and House who disagree with them. Senator Joe Lieberman, a close friend of John McCain, who did not support Obama, is a case in point. Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will “meet with him to discuss his future.” At issue is a filibuster proof Senate. To get there, Democrats need 60 votes. Lieberman, who chairs an important committee, changed his registration to Independent when he last stood for election after Democrats abandoned support for him and supported his ultra-liberal opponent. It’s well-known that Connecticut is the third or fourth most liberal state in the Nation. Lieberman often disagrees with the Democrat leadership. Will he be forced into line? Yes. Threatened with loss of his Committee chairmanship? Probably.              

          One final thing: life will go on. I will not climb out on a narrow ledge and contemplate jumping just because my Party did not win this election. The people chose Barack Hussein Obama, and although I did not agree, I will respect that decision.

          Generally, the Liberal elites think they know what’s best for the country. I do not believe, as Liberals do, that they know better than we how to spend our money, when we should and should not go to war, and - I love this one – that paying higher taxes is a patriotic duty, while Joe the Plummer and the rest of us are simply, as Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) said just a few months ago, ignorant “rednecks clinging to their religion and their guns,” because they do not understand the world around us.

          May God bless the United States of America!

          Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and see this article on TRIOND, at http://www.newsflavor.com/Oponions/Medias/Mission-Accomplished-Republicans-Out-Democrats-In.336745/3