President Trump and the Tragedy of American Ingratitude

by Nomad

Gratitude-The Parent of all Virtues

I've been doing some thinking on the subject of gratitude. How grateful am I? How much do I take for granted and do I count my lucky stars enough? Do any of us?
As the Roman Cicero said:

Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others."

As a concept, it often seems like it has gone the way of solitude and horse and buggy. Meaning, when you do find it, it's an exceptional and underrated thing.

Gratitude is defined as a feeling of appreciation or thanks. Unique among the nations of the world, the US is the one country that actually has a holiday (supposedly) dedicated to giving thanks. There was a time when saying blessings at dinner was fairly common. You'd think, therefore, giving thanks would still be an unshakeable American principle.

Dashed Hopes for Increase in Federal Minimum Wage May Be Just the Start of Hard Times

by Nomad

On 29 November, some 40 people were arrested at a protest outside a McDonald’s restaurant in Detroit. They had gathered to demand wage increases. With picket signs and a loudspeaker, hundreds of workers demanded a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour. Said one protesting worker:

“They are a multi-billion dollar company and they can afford to help us support our families. I cannot support my family on $8.50.”

On that day, there were similar demonstrations in hundreds of US cities, including the commercial hubs of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
The protests were put together as part of the "Fight for $15," a US-based international movement seeking a minimum wage of $15-per hour for low-paid workers.

Given the outcome of the last election, few expect these nationwide protests to have any impact.

Efforts to raise the federal minimum wage may, in fact, come to a crashing halt the very moment President Trump is inaugurated. 

During the campaign, he made the off-hand remark that wages were too high. He said:

"Taxes too high, wages too high. We're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and they have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it."

It was a truly insulting thing for a man of Trump's wealth to say.

Rejecting Stagnation: Why a Progressive Ideology is Really What America's All About

by Nomad

In a world impatient for change and for development, what's so wrong about a progressive superpower?

Candidate JEB expressed a complaint commonly heard among the conservatives about the progressive mentality.

The progressive and liberal mindset believes that to every problem there is a Washington, D.C. solution.

Unlike a lot of rubbish endelessly repeated in the Republican ranks, JEB's remark is not entirely untrue. Too often too much faith is put in government to resolve all problems and immediately.

But is the alternative- of doing nothing and ignoring a problem- really any better? 

The Cancer that Ate America?

It strange to hear conservatives use the idea of progress as a kind of insult. Easily outraged Glenn Beck, back when he still had his gig at Fox News, once called JEB's brother and former President George W. Bush a progressive. (The nerve!) 

And yet, George Bush thought of himself as a “compassionate conservative." So perhaps the label is based more on one's perspective.

In the twisted mind of Glenn Beck, progressive ideology is a "cancer that's eating at America" and anybody who might think differently is "evil." Progressives are little better than Nazis, These are things he has actually claimed, at least.

The term progressive is often associated with change of a "radical" kind. As we all know, a radical is a dangerous person. Radicals blow up buildings and call for the overthrow of governments. A radical ideology is one that cannot be argued with. Compromise is not possible with radicals because a radical is not willing to respect anybody with a different opinion.

Of course, what could be more radical a policy than cutting health care for millions of Americans, eliminating environmental regulations that ensure clean air and clean water? What could be more radical than privatizing or cutting Social Security for seniors who depend on this assistance for their survival?
Shutting down the government solely on the basis of a ideological principle seems pretty radical to me. 

Beck wouldn't be the first person on the Right to use the term progressive in such a way. For quite some time now, according to conservative media, a progressive has been a very very bad thing to be.
Yet that view seems to run counter to so many ideas that America was actually built upon.

Eligibility: How Ted Cruz Got Totally Tripped up in his Tangle of Lies

by Nomad

If Ted Cruz is eligible, says one blogger, then he has been caught in yet another lie. Like Cruz, Obama's mother was American. If Obama is eligible, why have the Birthers like Cruz been slandering the president for so many years?

AMERICAblog writer, Jon Green, makes a valid point worth highlighting about Ted Cruz and the revived question of his eligibility to run as president.  

With a great deal of schadenfreude,  we on the Left can thank Donald Trump for bringing up this issue. Is Canadian-born Ted "Rafael" Cruz actually constitutionally eligible to run for president?

It's doubtful whether there's much validity to Trump's argument but it is everso enjoyable to watch Cruz squirm in the heat of the media attention. After years of leading a completely ridiculous crusade against the President's eligibility. it is fun to see the table turned. Over the years, Cruz (and Trump too) propagated vague theories about Obama's unfitness for office. And that had the easily-deceived birthers eating from Ted's palm. He didn't get to be a Tea Party favorite by his good looks and shining intellect. 

Trump's question about Cruz's eligibility appeared to be fairly simple to resolve. Cruz produced his birth certificate proving that he was born to an American mother, thus satisfying the qualifications. No matter where he was born, Canada or Russia or Kenya, so long as his mother had an American passport, he could claim American citizenship.
But the debate wouldn't die. Some leading constitutional lawyers still openly disagreed about the issue.  The Washington Post states:

In Cruz's case, nobody is disputing the underlying facts of the case -- that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a U.S. citizen. ... that makes him a U.S. citizen himself, but it's not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a "natural-born citizen" -- the requirement for becoming president.

The Post adds that while most scholars think the terms mean the same thing and that Cruz "most likely" qualifies, nobody is quite sure. It's mighty satisfying to watch Cruz getting a taste of his own bitter medicine. 

President Obama on Giving a Sense of Hope and Vision

by Nomad

---

Related articles

• Obama says a thing. Republican outrage. Pope Francis says a similar thing. Where's the outrage?

Reflections on an Ungrateful Nation

by Nomad

In free countries, it is natural to complain about how the nation is being run. The public must hold high standards when it comes to the kind of government it expects. However, that shouldn't mean being blind when things are done properly. It should not mean refusing to give credit when it is due.

Not long ago I saw this newspaper clipping (on the left) and it started me thinking about the negative attitude of so many Americans.

"The hardest arithmetic to master," said Eric Hoffer, "is that which enables us to count our blessings."  

When you listen to people talking you start to wonder how this nation became such a collection of complainers and pampered brats.  

A recent poll by USA Today/Pew Research Center shows Americans say the biggest problem facing the country today is the state of the economy. And yet, so many Americans still seem ungrateful even as things have begun looking brighter on that front. 

After some somewhat less than sterling numbers at the beginning of the year, analysts saw the U.S. labor market "snap back from another brutal winter with a return to healthy job growth." Last month, initial claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in 15 years. 

The Iraq War and The Fine Art of Republican Revisionism

by Nomad

No matter how intense the barrage of propaganda and how constant the lies, Americans owe it to the 4,486 U.S. soldiers that died in Iraq to remember. Remembering the lessons of the war might just prevent the nation from making the same disastrous mistakes.

Margaret Meiers, in an op-ed piece for the Pittsburgh Post-gazette, asks how Americans can possible be so forgetful of recent events. 

Responding to an earlier newspaper opinion post, she states:

While Fox News and Bush administration officials try to rewrite history, it is known that faulty intelligence was drummed up and cherry-picked to be used to convince the people of the United States, Congress and the United Nations into supporting war.

Intelligence and Something Else

In case,  you need some reminders, Meiers provides us with a short list.

Remember Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Judith Miller’s reporting in The New York Times about aluminum tubes? Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations based on lies? The Downing Street memo? Remember “mushroom clouds,” duct tape and Curveball? And let’s not forget the Project for a New American Century, which openly pushed for war against Iraq before 9/​11 (the architects of whom are now Jeb Bush’s election campaign committee to keep him informed on foreign policy). Great.

Ignorance of events that happened, say in your grandfather's time may be forgiven but these things happened in 2003. We have a duty to those who died not to allow lies to mask the truth. We owe them that much at least.

Destiny in the Making: President Obama Made History 25 years Ago Today

by Nomad

A quarter of a century ago, one soft-spoken student with a sense of destiny took his first steps into the public spotlight. His name was Barack Obama. 

Twenty five years ago, Barack Obama was elected the Harvard Law Review's first black president. Here is the New York Times announcement.

(Hat-tip to my long lost cousin, Angel.)

How the Facts about Benghazi Bring an End to the Republican Lying Game

by Nomad

After two long years of investigating the Benghazi incident, the Republicans were forced to admit that all of the slanderous claims made against Obama and his administration were, in fact, untrue.
Nobody wants to talk about holding anybody to account now.

This week the last chapter in the pathetic Benghazi attack saga was finally written.

Hopefully. 
After years of constant (some said faked) outrage about the tragic events in September 2012, the final report by the Republican Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was very quietly released. It should have been big news. The mainstream media however barely reported it. 

That's not a surprise perhaps since this report- direct from the Committee itself- absolutely vindicated the Obama administration's version of events.

The investigations really started on that night with presidential candidate Mitt Romney's famous smirk. For a president seeking re-election, the timing of the Libyan event couldn't have been worse. The tragedy allowed the Republicans to paint the entire administration as incompetent, careless, and able to react to an unfolding crisis. Weak leadership, in a word.

Unfortunately, Romney overplayed his hand and his opportunism backfired miserably, leading one commentator to call the candidate's press conference   "one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign." 

Fox News however called Romney's remarks about the Benghazi attack a demonstration of his "Reaganesque commitment to American resolve in our might."

On that night, the battle lines were drawn.

Tea Party's Ted Cruz Is Confident He Will Be The Answer

by Nomad

Apologies for the deceptive headline. I couldn't resist the temptation. In fact, this quote by Ted Cruz is probably more accurate than he intended it to be.

Out of all the silly things that Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz has said, this is perhaps the only thing I can agree with him on. I sincerely hope that we all won't have to wait twenty years to make this forecast a reality.

I think it will be the hardest trivial pursuit question to answer because absolutely will recall who the hell Ted Cruz was. 

Obama vs. The Cheneys: A Question of American Values

by Nomad

When President Obama admitted that the CIA had, in the years after 9/11, committed torture, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president blasted the president, calling him an "utter disgrace." The interrogators, she said, were "patriots" and "heroes."

She failed to understand that the torture debate wasn't a matter of patriotism. It was a question of American values and what America stands for.

The Unseen Trap

In itself it was a fairly obvious thing to say. Last Friday, President Obama admitted that the CIA had committed torture. But what was surprising was his use of the pronoun "we." 

After handing over a report to Congress about an investigation into “enhanced interrogation techniques," President Obama said the CIA had “tortured some folks” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

What gives? I wondered. Presumably he was referring to the CIA during the Bush administration. If he were attempting to show solidarity with the CIA then it seemed a politically dangerous and needless thing to say. Indeed, many headlines from the so-called liberally-biased media simply read "We tortured folks, says Obama."

Now it is clear what he was doing: It was a bait for conservatives.

In short order, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, erupted with indignation about Obama's remarks. The venue was, predictably enough, Sean Hannity's show on Fox News.  

Hyperbole, like you never saw.

"..This president is an utter disgrace. He’s got a situation where... you’ve got crises erupting around the world."

A classic non-sequitur and a distraction. Obama wasn't there to talk about the problems of the world and she knew it.  Cheney, (Liz , that is) went on to say:

“And he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11."

Of course, Cheney's explosive rhetoric is aimed at dividing Americans, a lame attempt to stoke fears one more time. The Cheney apples do not fall far from the tree.

Additionally, there is a very real question about the accuracy of her allegation. Did torture actually keep anybody safe, either in the short or long term?

That's a statement that requires Cheney to prove and she is clearly not willing to attempt it. However, the unreleased U.S. Senate report, according to one source, is purported to conclude that the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques following 9/11 attacks was ineffective and yielded no critical intelligence. 

That's bad news for the Cheney family.

Actually, President Obama never said that enhanced interrogation didn't save lives. He said only that these techniques were contrary to our values. Perhaps the moral question -which is what the president was referring to- is simply not something a daughter of Mr. Dick Cheney could possibly grasp.

Not in a million years.

And that is the trap that Obama set and the one into which Liz Cheney - clearly speaking in defense of her father's policies- unwittingly tumbled. It is a question of values, a question whether the ends justify the means. 

Just because we can find a rationale for doing it and a legal means to escape second-guessing, does it make it right? 

Cheney's Editorial: A Total Detachment from Responsibility and Reality

by Nomad

Minds were boggled this week as ex-vice president Dick Cheney managed to flip history on its head in order to escape his record in advocating the invasion of Iraq. 

In yet another example of Republican delusional thinking, former vice-president Dick Cheney penned an op-ed for the (Rupert Murdoch-owned) The Wall Street Journal this week, blasting President Obama on  foreign policy. 

Specifically he accused the president of "'fantasy' policies that weaken the US armed forces, embolden terror networks like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and reduce Washington's ability to influence global events."

It was a startling piece of writing, given the source. For a full appreciation of the text, an experienced mental health expert is perhaps required. Psychological projection is evident throughout and frankly, it's a little frightening to see how detached from reality the man has become.
(If Liz Cheney truly loved her father, she would keep as far  from access to the media as she could. Even Nancy Reagan had the common decency to do that for her husband.)

Arming ISIS: The Danger of Listening to Warhawks

by Nomad

Two years ago, as the Syrian Civil War dragged on, Republican war hawks had the answers about what President ought to do in Syria. Sending weapons to the freedom fighting rebels was the only answer. 

Today we can see the folly of McCain's foreign policy solutions.

Back in February 2012, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were indulging in their favorite hobby, telling President Obama what he ought to be doing in the seemingly insolvable Syrian Civil War.
Their answer was to send American weapons to the anti-Assad rebels.

McCain's Folly

“I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” McCain told reporters at a news conference during a visit to the Afghan capital, Kabul, “The Iranians and the Russians are providing Bashar Assad with weapons. People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves.”

“So I am not only not opposed, but I am in favor of weapons being obtained by the opposition.”

In other words, the best policy was to return to the proxy wars of the Cold War.

(Nobody on the Republican side bothered to inform the senators that arming rebels in any country is a violation of international law. The International Court of Justice has in the past ruled that such shipments violated the UN charter. The last time this matter came up was curiously enough in the Reagan era with the covert arming of the Nicaraguan contras.)

According to a Wall Street Journal article (behind a firewall), legal advisers to President Obama repeatedly warned that aiding the Syrian rebels probably "violated international law and risked a direct conflict with the Assad regime."

Furthermore, it could easily lead into a larger conflict involving Turkey, Iran, Russia, Israel and other regional neighbors. The President had every reason to proceed with extreme caution. It's the kind of thing a president- as Commander in Chief- is paid to consider.

It was clear that the Obama Administration was never fully committed to the idea of sending weapons. In any event, it made no sense to openly discuss that option. What is the benefit of publicizing such a policy? 

The then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also a little less hawkish about the idea. However according to one source, (her own recently-published memoirs) suggests that early in the country's civil war, she thought the proposal was one option.
Importantly, she adds, that view was overruled by the president.

"The risks of both action and inaction were high, [but] the president [Obama]'s inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels," she added.

"No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the president's call and I respected his deliberations and decision," she wrote, according to CBS News.

As we shall see,  Hilary's version of events was not exactly the final chapter in the whole story. Ultimately, everybody in Washington and in Europe agreed that the Syrian President Assad had to go but nobody could decide how it should be done.
For the war hawk Republicans, the most expedient way seemed to be shipping weapons into the country covertly. It had worked in other cases. After all, it worked for Reagan and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan...hadn't it?

The Importance of Impeachment: How the Tea Party is Abusing Constitutional Procedure

by Nomad

Since the first presidential impeachment in 1868,  the procedure has proved to be a terribly imperfect tool. However, even when not applied, its existence is essential for the Republic. 

David Stewart's book, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy is a fascinating study of a constitutional crisis. The book is set against the period immediately after the war of rebellion when the nation was attempting somehow to put the country back together. Just to show you how easily things can go terribly wrong, Lincoln's best intentions turned out to be a colossal misjudgment.

Not many historians have pointed out that Lincoln was, in fact, neither Republican nor Democrat in this second term. He was the candidate for the National Unity Party and he chose as his vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southern Democrat. (Imagine that? A single ticket made of both parties?) 

Had Lincoln not been murdered, the constitutional crisis of presidential impeachment would have been avoided. However, the new president's suspected loyalty to the defeated South, his position that states had the right to their sovereignty- even after what most saw as outright sedition- were too much for some in Congress to bear. When faced with an unyielding Republican minority (every bit as querulous and uncompromising as today's Tea Party) determined to unseat the president by hook or crook, the 17th President's arrogance and stubbornness made impeachment unavoidable. 

It's a good read. And the story of how and why the Radical Republicans attempted to use the process of impeachment to remove President Johnson gives a lot of insight into the ways elected representative under partisan stress can lose track of their primary mission.

Sarah Palin vs. Albert Einstein

by Nomad

I saw Palin was criticizing Obama's dress sense the other day.  

“People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil,” she told Sean Hannity Monday night. “They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.”

Obama and EO 13036: New Tea Party Hysteria over Emergency Preparedness

by Nomad

When President Obama announced in no uncertain terms that he would use his executive powers to get around Congressional obstructionism, some on the Right appeared outraged. It's no surprise then they would dig up something from the past to launch yet another call for impeachment. In this post, we explore Executive Order 13036, the Tea Party meme and the source of this quackery.

As we have all come to realize, Republican hysteria seems to know no limit. The latest drum-beat which has the Tea Party radicals dancing frenetically to is now the word "outlaw. It sounds like this: Obama is an outlaw isn't he? And what an outlaw he is? What law has that outlawing outlaw Obama outed today? Impeach that outlaw.
Outlaw? Outlaw.

Quacking ducks make about as much sense. 

I saw this very black and very sinister-looking poster in the twitter-sphere. (I added the "Busted" so it couldn't be recycled.) The memes warned that the president has signed this here executive order- practically a royal decree- giving him the right to take, not just my hope, my dignity, my reason for living but... all my things. "Everything you own" can now be taken away. 

The text- and for a meme asks a lot of reading from its audience- states:

Under Executive Order 13036 everything you own can be taken away under the guise of national security. This order rips our Constitution to shreds. One person has all this power? Are we really living as free people or are we living under a dictatorship? Was it not more than seventy years ago that an ugly short mustache man did the same thing in Europe? I leave you one burning question: What is the real purpose of this Executive Order?

That's right, this outlaw president is planning to violate the Constitution in order to get your household appliances, your flat screen TVs and most importantly, your guns.

The accompanying tweet advised me to Google Executive Order 13036. So, being a curious fellow with a lot of free time, I did as instructed and googled. 

But I somehow doubt many Right-wingers bothered to do so. If they had devoted as little as 2 minutes of independent research- instead of simply joining in with tweet-chanting "Impeach Obama"- they might have realized how they had been- once again- hoaxed by Tea Party fear-mongering.

Recess Appointments and Partisan Obstructionism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

by Nomad

This week the Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court's decision which declared unconstitutional President Obama's use of recess appointments.

The ramifications of a Supreme Court decision upholding the lower decision could be disastrous for Obama. Why? Should the Senate fall into the hands of the obstructionist Republicans, Obama's chances of getting any nominations may be impossible. How the justices decide in this case could play a crucial factor not only in the remainder of this administration but in future presidencies.

Recess Appointments

Like a lot of cases before the Supreme Court, the actual importance and impact are buried beneath mounds of mundane details. Such is the case of the constitutionality of recess appointments. For instance, strictly speaking, the case is straightforward. It revolves around the president's ability to make appointments while the Senate is at recess. What are the limits to this presidential power according to the constitution? 

There is no reason question whether the US constitution gives Presidents the right to fill a vacant position if the Senate is in recess. Wikipedia describes recess appointments this way:

The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the Senate is in recess the President may act alone by making a recess appointment to fill "Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."   

In a happier world in which all of the branches of government work together and make nice to one another, this could be seen as merely a way to smooth the confirmation process along. But of course, that's not the world in which we live and Washington has never a happy place for long. 

Election Night, Cargo Bar- 2008

by Nomad

It was exactly four years ago. Another election night with all of the apprehension and lip-biting that goes with the political event. Having watched the election for those several months that I was back in the US, I kept asking myself whether it was actually possible that Old man McCain and his cartoon sidekick, Sarah Palin might actually win. No, definitely not. Well, maybe. What if..

I had been living in Staten Island- the least appreciated borough of New York City- for a few months as I sorted out some family business. Although Staten Island seemed the complete antithesis of New York City in so many ways, the shimmering lights of the towers of Manhattan were in clear view across the harbor. On that night I chose to be a recluse and keep my distance. 

I had my reasons, though, looking back, they do seem pretty silly. 

As the election results filtered in from various states, I sat at home, in front of my laptop checking all the usual sites for information and then confirmation. I had, I admit, hesitated a little about going out. The neighborhood was primarily minority and poor. In the rush of an unexpected Obama loss, I thought that I might be conceivably be mistaken for a symbol of white elitism. It seems silly now but at that time, I thought: why take any chances? It probably had a lot to do with my Midwest upbringing than any real threat.

The Small Town in Illinois that Bishop Jenky Forgot

by Nomad

Strange Remarks from a Bishop

Back in April of this year, Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois began a rambling sermon called "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith" with this observation: 

There is only one basic reason why Christianity exists and that is the fact that Jesus Christ truly rose from the grave.

It's quite a strange statement when you think about it but so boldly stated that few had to courage to challenge it. The resurrection was only one aspect of the Christ story. What about Christ providing a model through his love to all humankind, rich or poor, male or female and morally righteous or fallen? What about the Gospel of the all-forgiving Lord which was quite different than the image of God in the Old Testament? What about his command to the flock to "love thy neighbor"?  

According to Bishop Jenky, it was the miraculous reanimation of the flesh of Jesus which is "the only one basic reason why Christianity exists."

It must have been quite baffling to hear a bishop make such a statement. But there was quite a bit more in store for the congregation.

About three-quarters of the way into the lecture, the bishop’s remarks took an even more surprising turn. He used the pulpit to attack the president’s policies on healthcare by telling his parishioners:

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgement seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.

This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.

Many across the country criticized these provocative remarks. By attempting to equate Obama to both Hitler and Stalin, Jenky tried to stir up public fears with visions of rampant fascism and outlandish notions of  shutting down of the Catholic Church. It was clear that Bishop Jenky was diving into uncharted waters. 
At that time , it sparked me to investigate the Church’s more recent history with fascism. (It was a rewarding investigation.)

A Church Without a Flock?

In point of fact, as far as a so-called Catholic conscience goes, according a survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, most U.S. Catholics ( 60 percent) think the church should focus more on social justice and helping the poor, even if it means focusing less on issues like abortion. 

And there's still worse news for Jenky.

A survey in September found that President Barack Obama holds a 54%-39% advantage over Mitt Romney among Catholics- despite the bishop's appeals.

Hurricane Sandy Brings an October Surprise

by Nomad

I
n a rather surprising show of solidarity, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has been bashing President Obama for the last year on his lack of leadership- did an about-face after his state was devastated by Hurricane Sandy. 

According to CBSNews

Christie called the level of cooperation between the local, state and federal governments "excellent" and praised President Obama's involvement. "I was on the phone for the third time yesterday, last night, with the president of the United States. He called me at midnight last night as he was seeing reports," he said before adding that President Obama accelerated the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area "without the usual red tape."

"The cooperation has been great with FEMA here on the ground and the cooperation from the president of the United States has been outstanding. He deserves great credit," Christie added.

Meanwhile Jay Carney, spokesman for the White House, gave this assessment of the relief efforts:

"When disaster strikes, Americans suffer -- not Democrats, not independents, not Republicans -- Americans suffer. And then we come together and put politics aside to make sure that those Americans get the assistance that they need."

With a week left before the election, Obama  canceled campaign trips planned for Tuesday and Wednesday to stay in Washington and supervise storm recovery. On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to visit New Jersey, and is expected to return to campaigning on Thursday.