The Obama Administration and Freedom of Speech

Wednesday, October 7, AD 2009

George Washington-Freedom of Speech

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Founding Fathers left no doubt which freedoms they held most important.  They inserted them into the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Freedom of speech and of the press come right after freedom of religion.  These freedoms, and all the others set forth in the Constitution, are the birthright of all Americans and a precious example to the rest of the world.  That is why I am bemused by the manner in which the Obama administration appears to be indifferent to attempts to undermine freedom of speech and of the press at the UN.

Hattip to Instapundit.  In an article here at the The Weekly Standard, Anne Bayefsky, writes about the Obama administration signing on to a freedom of expression resolution.

“The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Continue reading...

One Response to The Obama Administration and Freedom of Speech

  • Two thoughts

    1. I find it interesting that the same resolution that contains “Stresses that condemning and addressing,. . . any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, . . . .” also contains ” Recognizes that the open public debate of ideas can be among the best protections against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, and can play a positive role in combating national, racial, or religious hatred”

    2. Given our national heritage and values, how many of us shout “there oughta be a law!” when the “Piss-Christ” is displayed? I do not include in that group people who simply point out the tasteless, offensive, sacrilegious and intolerant nature of the “work of art.”

4 Responses to Alfred E. Obama Open Thread

Outrageously Anti-Abortion

Tuesday, October 6, AD 2009

Sometimes it’s all in the phrasing. The other day I read a mention of the annual Red Mass celebrated in Washington DC which quoted Justice Ginsburg’s explanation of why she no longer attends (though Justice Breyer, also Jewish, attends). The quote in full:

“Before every session, there’s a Red Mass,” Ginsburg said. “And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion.”

Outrageously anti-abortion. Well.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Outrageously Anti-Abortion

  • And I thought Cardinal DiNardo was being a bit too subtle. If only more Bps were outrageously anti-abortion.

  • I’d just consider that to be a compliment. 🙂

  • Justice Ginsburg is a joke. Her politics are 19th century racism combined with 20th century eugenics a la Margaret Sanger.

    For her to be upset about the Mass means about zero to me.

  • Aside from my feelings towards that particular confused justice, I’m left wondering what causes some people to become outrageously pro-abortion. Something ugly must happen early in life to turn their heart so black.

  • I am wondering the same thing myself about Justice Ginsburg.

  • I should be clear: I like that we’re called “outrageously anti-abortion”. What shocking thing will she discover Catholics to be next? “appaulingly religious”? “ridiculously devout”?

  • “Exremely loving”, “fundementally aware of our own failings”, “severely respectful of legitimate authority”, “outrageously seeking Justice”, “radically forgiving”, etc. etc.

    Wow, those Catholics are just too extreme. We should become more lukewarm and mediocre so that we’ll appeal to more people.

    A little murder is OK. Rape-rape is bad, but plain old rape, hey that’s just a choice. A mild amount of sodomy isn’t really homosexual. Racism is bad especially against ‘health-care reform’, but eugenics is just.

    Poor soul. She is obviously not Catholic, but can she even be considered Jewish? If I am not mistaken the Ten Commandments are the same in both Testaments, well, except they are more ‘extremely’ applied by that ‘radical’ Jesus of Nazareth.

  • I’d suspect that Ginsburg has herself had one or more abortions sometime in the past . . . this kind of highly defensive overreaction is usually the sign of someone who is trying to rationalize their own behavior.

  • Pingback: Ginsburg and the Outrageously Anti-Abortion Red Mass » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
  • Particularly distressing about Justice Ginsberg’s various comments is this one:

    “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them”.

    What amazes me is to hear from the mouth of Jewish women. She seems not to know which group was the special target of the German government in the 1930s. [I love the “we”. Who is the “we”?

  • Gabriel,

    That’s the statement that most sticks out in my mind.

    It’s interesting how the mainstream media never even mentioned this incident.

  • Gabriel: that was the first thing I thought of when I heard her use the word “outrageous.”

  • Tito Edwards writes Tuesday, October 6, 2009 A.D. at 3:33
    “Gabriel,
    “That’s the statement that most sticks out in my mind.
    “It’s interesting how the mainstream media never even mentioned this incident”.

    Now, now, mustn’t blame the mainstream muddle. The comment appeared in the NYTimes.

    Floating in the back of my mind is the Jewish question. Reading the Bible, reading the history of the Jews through the ages, it seems to me that the Jews are falling into the same error. From a highly religious small core, they relax into cooperation with the secular powers,

One Year Already?

Tuesday, October 6, AD 2009

Happy Birthday American Catholic

I find it hard to believe, but The American Catholic is celebrating its one year birthday today.  I’ve enjoyed writing for the blog over the past year immensely, and I hope our readers and commenters have also had some fun.  Contributors  will be linking to some of their favorite posts.  Here are two of mine:

1.  report-to-the-emperor-first-draft-I posted this on Good Friday and I think I will make this a blog tradition of doing so each year.

2.  triumph-of-the-king-This I posted on Palm Sunday.

My friend and colleague Christopher Blosser is having some computer trouble.  Two of his posts that I greatly admire are:

1.  mitsuo-fuchida-from-pearl-harbor-to-calvary.

2.  catholic-campaign-for-human-development-tainted-by-acorn-or-still-rotten-itself.

In regard to Chris this list would be quite lengthy if I included all the posts he has written which I wish I had written!  Writer envy, it is a terrible thing!

I am sure the next year will be as crowded with events as the last one was.  The American Catholic will be here to comment on the passing scene,  as Americans and Catholics, with, I trust, a leavening of humor and at least a dash of common sense.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to One Year Already?

President Log

Tuesday, October 6, AD 2009

Obama Clueless

“THE FROGS WHO WISHED FOR A KING

The Frogs were tired of governing themselves. They had so much freedom that it had spoiled them, and they did nothing but sit around croaking in a bored manner and wishing for a government that could entertain them with the pomp and display of royalty, and rule them in a way to make them know they were being ruled. No milk and water government for them, they declared. So they sent a petition to Jupiter asking for a king.

Jupiter saw what simple and foolish creatures they were, but to keep them quiet and make them think they had a king he threw down a huge log, which fell into the water with a great splash. The Frogs hid themselves among the reeds and grasses, thinking the new king to be some fearful giant. But they soon discovered how tame and peaceable King Log was. In a short time the younger Frogs were using him for a diving platform, while the older Frogs made him a meeting place, where they complained loudly to Jupiter about the government.

To teach the Frogs a lesson the ruler of the gods now sent a Crane to be king of Frogland. The Crane proved to be a very different sort of king from old King Log. He gobbled up the poor Frogs right and left and they soon saw what fools they had been. In mournful croaks they begged Jupiter to take away the cruel tyrant before they should all be destroyed.

“How now!” cried Jupiter “Are you not yet content? You have what you asked for and so you have only yourselves to blame for your misfortunes.””

Like most conservatives, after last year’s election I thought that Obama would prove a President Crane as far as conservatives were concerned.  With large Democrat majorities in the House and Senate I assumed that Obama would implement changes in this country to send it on a left-ward trajectory.  Instead, other than passing the Bankrupt the Nation Act of 2009, sometimes erroneously called the Stimulus bill, Obama has accomplished virtually nothing, a fact which even Saturday Night Live is now mocking. This is astonishing considering the size of his victory last year and the strength of his party in Congress.  Or is it?  I believe there were clear clues from the background of Obama that this might occur.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to President Log

  • I think it is incautious of Martin Peretz to offer a clinical diagnosis of a man he has only seen on the news. What is notable about the President is his tendency to plumb the shallows of whatever endeavour he sets himself to: he is admitted to the bar, apparently elects to forego any sort of clerkship, is (after a year) hired as an adjunct at a law school, publishes no scholarly work in twelve years on the faculty, is (after two years) hired as an associate at a law firm, is not granted a partnership and is classified by the firm as ‘of counsel’ after just three years in their employ, is elected to the state legislature, is identified with what notable amendments to the Illinois Revised Statutes nobody knows, allows his membership in the Illinois bar to lapse to a status of ‘inactive’, is elected to the federal legislature, spends about 40% of his time running for higher office and votes ‘present’ a good deal, and so forth. What kind of a lawyer is he?

  • “What kind of a lawyer is he?”

    One who obviously never wanted to engage in the practice of law. To be fair to Obama I’d say about a quarter of law school grads fall into this category.

    Obama seems to be very good at getting where he wants to go, but once he is there he doesn’t seem to do anything except move on to the next goal. I wonder what his goal is after the presidency.

Medjugorje, Exploring the Origins

Tuesday, October 6, AD 2009

The alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje have had a sordid history.  Much of it to some extent successfully Tomislav Vlasix Marian Hoax Medjugorjeglossed over or reinterpreted by the Franciscans that run the parish at Medjugorje.  A document was put out by Bishop Ratko Peric, the ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno that encompasses Medjugorje, which was translated by Richard Chonak of the Catholic Light blog, that put to record of what actually occurred in Medjugorje and how the alleged apparitions were fabricated and manipulated by dissident priests such as Tomislav Vlasic and Slavko Barbaric.

I want to briefly summarize some highlights from this translated document first, which then be followed by the translated document in full.

Highlights:

1. Tomislav Vlasic, in collusion with his superior, undermined the authority of the bishop by relocating himself to Medjugorje without asking permission.  They waited an entire year to do so.

2. Tomislav Vlasic and Slavko Barbaric, the spiritual directors of the alleged seers, did not allow the seers to report any alleged messages from the Madonna without coming to them first so they can have their stories straight.

3. A grave theological error that the alleged apparition stated that all people in Heaven have their souls and their bodies with them.  I guess Tomislav Vlasic never studied the Nicene Creed.

4. Tomislav Vlasic claimed to have visited the Pope (John Paul II) when he never did.

5. The Madonna wanted Slavko Barbaric to replace Tomislav Vlasic as the spiritual director so he could document the entire episode of the visions.  Slavko Barbaric passed away in AD 2000, and the alleged apparitions continue to this day… without Slavko Barbaric.  Another “vision” that never came true.

There are many more, but I just highlighted the big ones that I thought were prescient.  The following is the completed translation of Bishop Ratko Peric’s documentation of the many errors of the apparitions in Medjugorje:

Vlasic’s involvement in the “Medjugorje phenomenon”

Just as last year, when the Holy See sanctioned the Rev. Vlasic with interdict, warning him of more severe penalties if he would not obey, once again numerous comments have appeared in the mass media to proclaim the non-connection between the “Medjugorje phenomenon” and the “Vlasic case”. If in both the letter and in reference to the two more serious penalties there is an explicit reminder of the “Medjugorje phenomenon”,[1] in which Tomislav Vlasic in involved, why is there never any connection between the one and the other? We would like to recall just that undeniable connection, from the beginning.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Medjugorje, Exploring the Origins

  • Pingback: Medjugorje – Genuine or Hoax? « Per Christum Catholic Blog
  • Tito,

    I’m very much a critic of Medjugorje, for many reasons. I find it to be one great deception. Strange enough, when I discuss it with many people, I end up being treated as if I blasphemed God for questioning an apparition and blacklisted.

    That, I think, says something about the demonic attack going on here. If it were legitimate, as St John of the Cross points out, the questions would be welcomed.

  • Henry,

    I agree about the demonic attack.

    I’ve been on the fence ever since I learned about Medjugorje. I even bought by Wayne Weible.

    Unfortunately, I was just returning and learning my faith, but one thing from the book constantly gnawed at me at it was the seers disobeying Mary.

    In the book Mary asked a couple of the seers to enter religious life. Both of them declined and I believe one of them got married.

    That is what got me to think more about these apparitions.

    Many people search for signs for guidance from God. And here are two seers that have communication with Mary herself and they refuse to listen to her direction.

    Which brought me to today. I don’t believe they are true. Unless of course the Vatican says they are worthy of belief, but I doubt that it will occur.

  • In the early 80s a lot of my Catholic charismatic friends believed Medjugorje was genuine and I agreed with them initially, but what eventually turned me off was the way the “messages” kept going on and on, ad nauseam, and on command in front of audiences at conferences, etc. Today I am about 99 percent convinced they are NOT genuine.

    Most genuine apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima last only for a limited time, just long enough for Mary to get out whatever message she has. If Mary is indeed without sin, and possessed of perfect humility, it stands to reason that she would know when to stop talking 🙂

    Some seers may have further apparitions or revelations (like Sister Lucia of Fatima) but when they do, they usually do not publicize them immediately or use them to attract attention, and they certainly don’t make a living off of them.

  • I really think there is too much “apparition hunting” by people “looking for a sign” and it really indicates the spirituality of our age (a weakened spirituality). I do believe there are some real solid encounters between Mary and the Saints with others (Zeitun is, imo, the most recent, authentic, public apparition), most of the time it is for a private grace and is not meant to be shared like this. Those who have it tend to be humble about it, shy about talking about it, even embarrassed about it — they don’t want to think of themselves as special and to be treated as such.

    Pride and prelest are indications of demons and liars.

  • I agree.

    There is so much more than searching for apparitions when you have the Eucharist available to anyone at each and every parish.

    Zeitoun is one of those sites that I find very interesting as well. To see how Muslims and Christians both flocked to this site was incredible to read! Even President Nassar was there and he believed!

  • I think it was Thomas Dubay who said something to the effect that people will spend thousands of dollars to go on pilgrimages, but won’t cross the street to give a casserole to an ailing or grieving neighbor.

  • If Mary is really what the Catholic Church believes her to be, and she genuinely wished to communicate with all of the world’s people, then she would do so in a clear and unequivocal way. i.e. via an image which could be seen and heard (and recorded) by everybody!

    Were that to happen, very few people would doubt the Catholic interpretation of the Christian Faith; and indeed very few people would fail to be converted…

    Instead we are asked to accept that for mysterious reasons beyond our understanding, Mary prefers to reveal herself in private and we then have to take it on some third party’s word that what she is alleged to have said is true.

    The inconsistencies and controversy noted above doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Medjugorje is almost certainly a hoax inflicted upon gullible Catholics.

    For reference, I have been to Medjugorje and even met one of the so called “Visionaries”. I was and remain, extremely unimpressed, but note that the local economy of Medjugorje is utterly dependent on tourism and so will do everything in its power to keep this travesty alive.

  • “If Mary is really what the Catholic Church believes her to be, and she genuinely wished to communicate with all of the world’s people, then she would do so in a clear and unequivocal way. i.e. via an image which could be seen and heard (and recorded) by everybody!”

    I think Medjugorje is hooey, but this argument is nonsence. Jesus was born in a backwater province of the Roman Empire. He died on a cross at thirty-three. His disciples were a very small group lacking any influence in Judaea, not to mention the world at large. Who could possibly have guessed that the movement he started would eventually encompass the globe with almost a third of humanity? God has His own purposes and His own methods.

  • I think it spread because a Roman emperor called Constantine attributed a military victory at Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 to the influence of a Christian God. Had this not happed, maybe Christianity would have remained “a very small group lacking any influence in Judaea, not to mention the world at large”.

  • Your knowledge of history is very faulty. By the time of the battle of the Milvian Bridge Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire and far beyond it. It had spread in the Roman Empire in spite of three centuries of fierce persecution.

  • Yes, there were pockets of Christians who sadly were persecuted before then, however it was under Constantine that Christianity rose to be the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and hence leveraged its influence on the world at large.

    (One reason why those Christians were so easily persecuted was that numerically, they were a minority group.)

    Without Constantine’s influence, Christianity almost certainly wouldn’t have had the impact (for better or worse) on the modern world that it subsequently did.

  • Untrue. Diocletian unleashed the last great persecution of the Christians not because there were mere pockets of Christianity, but because Christians were everywhere, even at his court and among his advisors. Constantine did not embrace a religion that was small, but a religion that was large and growing. In short, he backed the horse that was already winning the race. Gallerius, Emperor of the Eastern Roman empire, and who had instigated Diocletian to begin the great persecution, paid a left-handed tribute to the strength of Christianity in his edict of toleration which he issued on his death bed in 311 AD:

    "Among other arrangements which we are
    always accustomed to make for the prosperity and
    welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to
    bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws
    and public order of the Romans, and to provide that
    even the Christians who had left the religion of their
    fathers should come back to reason ; since, indeed,
    the Christians themselves, for some reason, had
    followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a
    folly that they would not obey the institutes of
    antiquity, which perchance their own ancestors had
    first established; but at their own will and pleasure,
    they would thus make laws unto themselves which
    they should observe and would collect various
    peoples in diverse places in congregations. Finally
    when our law had been promulgated to the effect that
    they should conform to the institutes of antiquity,
    many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even
    suffered death. And yet since most of them
    persevered in their determination, and we saw that
    they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the
    gods nor worshipped the God of the Christians, in
    view of our most mild clemency and the constant
    habit by which we are accustomed to grant
    indulgence to all, we thought that we ought to grant
    our most prompt indulgence also to these, so that
    they may again be Christians and may hold their
    conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to
    good order. But we shall tell the magistrates in
    another letter what they ought to do.
    Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to
    pray to their God for our safety, for that of the
    republic, and for their own, that the republic may
    continue uninjured on every side, and that they may
    be able to live securely in their homes.
    This edict is published at Nicomedia on the
    day before the Kalends of May, in our eighth
    consulship and the second of Maximinus."

    Galerius recognized that the might of the Empire was helpless against the faith of the Christians.

  • Christianity was still just one cult amongst several that permeated the latter day Roman Empire, including Mithraism (derived from Zoroastrism) and Dionysusim which was allied to past Greek and Roman gods.

    The reason Christianity was not totally suppressed by the Romans lay more in the general decline and relative weakness of their Empire rather than anything else.

    It remains extremely unlikely that without Constantine’s conversion, Christianity would have made anything like the impact on world history that it did.

  • Once again untrue. The pagan religions were dying while Christianity grew from strength to strength. The attempt by Julian the Apostate in the 360s to revive the pagan cults demonstrated how futile that was. As for the Empire being weak, the Empire was at its height during the first two centuries of Christianity. Christianity endured and grew whether the Empire was strong or weak and whether they were bittlerly persecuted or grudgingly tolerated.

  • Pingback: Its Official, CDF to Investigate Medjugorje « The American Catholic
  • I have visited Medjugorje two times in my life. Both were blessed occurances in my life. I feel with faith anything is possble. Medjugorje was a miracle in my life and I will cherish the rest of my life. Possibly the naysayers are the work of satin.

  • Cathy,

    If you were blessed in Medjugorje, you wouldn’t be damning the naysayers.

  • Tito

    It’s the work of cotton.

  • I personaly have resieved many wounderfull graces as a direct result of our ladys apparitions and the whole wounderfull medjugorje experience, our lady has helped me forward in my faith and her messages have given me a greater understanding of Gods endless love for each one of us his children, our lady of medjugorge messages have allways been messages of, allways putting our full trust in God to never lose hope, to regularely pray and fast, we are reminded to say the rosary, and encouraged to live our faith every moment of our life. All these are weapons to defeat saton, and certainly do not promote him, our lady is titled, Queen of peace, and from the beginning of the apparitions in 1981, our lady stressed the need for peace, our lady also stated the impending dangers in that country and the need to continuously pray for lasting peace foretelling of the conflict that sadly, took place in that country. our lady of medjugorje is continually leading us her children to her son, our lord and savior Jesus Christ, regularely reminding us of Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the euchorist, stating if it is a choise for any of us her children between events to do with our lady and receiving Jesus christ her son in the euchorist in holy mass, we are to allways put Jesus first, our lady also stated when pilgrims commented to the visionarys how priverlaged they were to recieve these graces,our lady of medjugorje said through the visionarys that our lady is allways closest to every soul who received her son our lord and savior Jesus christ in the euchorist, more closer than any visionary could experience, in an apparition, because the sacred heart of Jesus and the immaculate heart of mary are perfectly united in there love for each other. I could say so much about all the wounderfull experiences that one experiences there,the constant feeling of peace and holyness from the moment one arrives there,wounderfull,powerfull benedictions, experiences, of a supernatural nature involving the sun,such as seeing the host clearly in the centre of the sun without hurting the eyes, the word peace in there own language that appeared within the clouds over St James church for all to see in the early days of the apperitions. In my honest oppinion i firmy believe the real danger is not weather or not our lady of medjugorje is truly appearing in medjugorje which i truly believe she is but that so many souls who clearly have never been there are crediting the devil with abbilitys that only God has,supernatural graces involving the sun ,similar to Fatima, only God is omnipotent and omnicient.The devil can only do what God permits him to do . These apperitions have been taking place for 29 years this month the longest period in history,as far as i know, and there is no sign as yet of there compleation,what with all the wounderfull conversions that have taken place during that time,peoples lives have been changed for the better I will end know just by saying. I am a dedicated catholic, i have given you all my testimony just as it is, i have absolutely no reason to lie or exagerate, i believe i am a perfectly rational human being,my experiences were not hallusinations vivid dreams or anything else other than what i have said they were, of corse everybody has equal right to believe or disbelieve in these said apperitions,and i sincerely promise i will fully abide by whatever desition the vatican may make. All i ask to those who dont believe the apperitions of our lady of medjugorje are true,please as a brother in faith i ask you dont attack and condemn, clearly judjment has not been made and therefore if they were declared true,as i sincerely believe they will be,those who attacked would have been declaring evil,what is holy, a sin against the holy spirit,it is better to hold your thoughts…YOURS IN CHRIST…FRED.

  • 22 of us went to medjugorje in may 2010 – we all saw the sun spin – 2 rosaries turned gold color – 4 people had healings – nothing new . the sun spins virtually every day in M( signs,wonders, and response- albert hebert). millions of rosaries turn gold in M( visions of the children- janice connell- national best seller). also staues issue human tears & blood. also the incorruptible bodies of saints GET REAL GOD IS FACT! and also dont forget fatima – this event by itself prooves GOD IS FACT. science and common sense cannot explain these events the evidence is simply overwhelming. HELLO!

  • The sun is constantly and minutely monitored by numerous astronomical observatories and yet not a single one picks anything unusual! WHAT UTTER NONSENSE THIS TALK OF SPINNING SUNS IS!
    As for the supposed healings, take away the psychological hysteria surrounding Medjugorje and the spontaneous remissions which would have happened anyway and you are left with nothing.
    If the bible is an accurate account of Jesus’ ministry on earth, then His miracles were beyond doubt and clearly evident to everybody. This is NOT the same at all.

  • Tito, right again! As you said to Cathy, if she had truly been blessed, she would not be damning those who question it. Anyone who does that is not reacting in a Christian way of love. And by the way all you folks, there is nothing wrong in shining a stringent light on Medjugorye. If it is truly of God, it will hold up. If it does not, it will fold. After all, as St. Paul warned us, the devil can appear as an angel of light, and St. John warns us not to believe every spirit, but to discern. A loving, charming, happy emotional experience at Medjugorye is nice–but you can have that on your honeymoon. It is certainly not the standard you must hold Marian apparitions to! First you have to ask yourself: is what the apparition saying in line with the faith of the Church? Are the seers in obedience to the Church? Why have two of the priests of Medjugorye been defrocked? Mary asked two of the seers to enter the convent and the priesthood–neither one did! Why are they making money by giving tours and running bed and breakfast places? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Faith in God is not primarily an emotional thing–it is an action of the will. And you judge an apparition by what it says about God, and whether it is in agreement with Church doctrine. And you know what? As the late great Malachi Martin wrote, turning rosaries a gold color is just a party trick of the devil. As for all those people who have had good experiences at Medjugorye, God can write straight with crooked lines. I imagine there is nothing that offends Him like the devil counterfeiting an apparition of His Mother. I’m sure that anyone who sincerely loves Mary and honors her receives a special protection from Christ for their sincerity. In the meantime, read up on all the lies that have been told, and the disobedience of the seers themselves. It is chilling.
    And never forget: you don’t have to go to Medjugorye to have an experience with Jesus and Mary. You can do it anywhere–they’re everywhere! God Bless! Helen

One Response to The Day ObamaCare Died

Queen Elizabeth II Appalled At Church Of England

Monday, October 5, AD 2009

Queen Elizabeth unhappy

Richard Eden of the Daily Telegraph has reported that Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, who is also the head of the Church of England, is “appalled” at what has happened to the Anglican Communion.

The usually well-informed newspaper adds that the Queen, who is the Supreme Governor of the C(hurch) of E(ngland), is “also said to have an affinity with the Holy Father, who is of her generation”.

Quite good stuff to hear of the affinity that Queen Elizabeth has for Papa Bene.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Queen Elizabeth II Appalled At Church Of England

  • That is becos the QUeen swore an oath to the Catholic faith

  • Liz,

    Could you provide any evidence?

    As Queen of England she is defender of the faith, in this regard, the Anglican faith, not the Catholic faith.

    Unless of course, I missed something.

  • I think certain folks here and elsewhere should educate themselves concerning the Act of Supremacy and the Oath, the very which are the roots of that horrendous Henrician heresy which proclaimed the King (and, years later, the Queen) as Supreme Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.

    The very reason why John Cardinal Fisher, St. Sir Thomas More, the 105 Martyrs at Tyburn and all other recusants thereafter were put to death.

    It’s funny that the Queen should be appalled; doesn’t she know that she herself is actually Supreme Head of the Church?

    Hence, the responsiblity and, therefore, the blame falls rightly on her alone as well as her detestable lineage from which that very heresy sprung which hitherto only brought abominable ruin to what once was Catholic England!

  • e: Queen Elizabeth counts Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, as one of her ancestors, but she has Habsburg blood as well. The family trees of the royal families of Europe are ridiculously intertwined.

  • Donna V.:

    Thanks for the info.

    At this point, I’d rather not dwell on that abomination otherwise known as The Tudors.

    God bless.

Reunion Not Imminent Between Catholic and Orthodox Churches

Monday, October 5, AD 2009

Catholic Orthodox

Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, a major proponent of union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, has addressed the virulent opposition among the Metropolitans of Greece by stating that reunion is not imminent.

It is being propagated very falsely and conspiringly that the signing of the union of the Churches is imminent! A professor emeritus of Theology, who is well known for his ill-will towards my person, had visited a Hierarch of the Church of Greece and had told him that he knew with certainty (!) that the union had already been signed (in Ravenna!) and that the relative announcement was a matter of time!!! Clergy and laity have approached me and asked me if it is true that the union is to be signed in Cyprus, in October! Obviously, a feeling of unrest is being attempted among the people of God through this behaviour, with unpredictable consequences for the unity of the Church. However, those who are disseminating these things are fully aware (as long as they have not been blinded by empathy, fanaticism or a mania for self-projection), firstly, that the ongoing theological Dialogue has yet to span an extremely long course, because the theological differences that have accumulated during the one thousand years of division are many; and secondly, that the Committee for the Dialogue is entirely unqualified for the “signing” of a union, given that this right belongs to the Synods of the Churches. Therefore, why all the misinformation? Can’t the disseminators of these false “updates” think of what the consequences will be for the unity of the Church? [He who agitates (God’s people) shall bear the blame, whoever he may be — Galatians 5:10]

Continue reading...

One Response to Reunion Not Imminent Between Catholic and Orthodox Churches

12 Responses to John Mackey on Capitalism and Running a Business

  • I think the problem here is in the word “value” which is inherently subjective. Notice that MacKay never uses it. The noble purpose he aspires to is much more objective: healthy food, socially responsible trade, biodiversity, etc.

    I am sure walmart sells many good that people “value” but do they aspire to a noble purpose in the selling of those goods? They might say so because they are offering rock bottom prices which do help the family budget. But is there a trade-off?

  • Other than the fact that they have become China-Mart, Wal-Mart is a very helpful company. They are very, very beneficial to the poor. They hire people with low skills and also sell necessary goods at prices the poor can afford. Is that their mission? I don’t know. Does it really matter? In the temporal sense, no – they provide the benefit anyway, wether for virtue or greed.

    The problem with modern American quasi-corpratist capitalism is that it is not truly free-market capitalism, which is the only naturally occuring economic system. Management is usually made up of bean-counters who have no closeness to the business’ purpose just the bottom-line and shareholders are more often investment companies that have the same bottom-line orientation. If individuals own shares they are often treating the market of stocks as a gambler’s paradise rather than a place where one can easily transfer titles of ownership in a business they care about.

    Along with the easy money and manipulation of the Fed with its control of the banks and the money supply we do not have a free economic system that truly rewards entrepreneurs with a vision. We need to get back to that. Will the market always reward people with vision? No and it shouldn’t.

    The market, free from government intervention, is ultimately responsible to the end consumer. Consumer’s appetites dictate who succeeds and who fails. If people are thrifty, financially literate and moral the market will reward business that meets those standards. Unfortunately, those examples are dwindling in the modern controlled American and global economy.

    I never really liked Mackey’s stores becuase they are full of crunchy, granola eating people and tend to epitomize the neo-hippie trends; however, in light of his philosophy I think I may frequent the stores more, although they are quite expensive.

    Odd how the same people shop at Whole Foods and Starbucks, yet one company is pro-free market and truly responsible, the other is anti-capitalist, hypocritical and full of self-absorbed and condesending green (watermellon) ‘charity’.

  • AK,

    “The problem with modern American quasi-corpratist capitalism is that it is not truly free-market capitalism, which is the only naturally occuring economic system.”

    Markets evolved over time. The first societies were in fact communal. I’m not saying that this means we must be communal, but that different stages of technological development give rise to different economic systems. For most of human history the vast majority of the people did not participate in markets at all. They produced what they needed to live. For most of civilized history participation in markets was secondary to production for immediate consumption. Only in the last 400 years or so has production specifically for exchange become the predominant economic system.

    “If people are thrifty, financially literate and moral the market will reward business that meets those standards.”

    The problem with this is that it is almost as utopian as socialism. Any system can work if people are moral; the problem is that many people choose not to be, and ruin any system that they participate in.

    The Church has always recognized the right and duty of the state and the people to regulate the economy to serve the common good. The state is not perfectible, and markets are not perfectible, because man as such is not perfectible; as the teaching of the Church makes clear, however, ALL of these institutions are required to serve the common good.

    That means that leftists are wrong to categorically dismiss the market and rail against it as inherently immoral; and it also means that rightists are wrong when they categorically reject a meaningful role for the state and the public sector in meeting people’s needs. History has indeed shown that both are necessary, and that one without the other has the potential to lead to great injustice and civil disorder.

  • JH,

    “Markets evolved over time. The first societies were in fact communal. I’m not saying that this means we must be communal, but that different stages of technological development give rise to different economic systems.”

    Joe, I agree with your assessment, we were originally communal because we were in survival mode. I was referring to civilization. Men living in civilized society and not in communal tribes. In stating that free-market capitalism is the only NATURAL economic system I am making a statement of what freely acting men will do: engage in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. The only technology needed for that is money, a medium of exchange. Even if production is nothing more than growing crops or raising cattle and even if the medium of exchange is trading crops for cattle. That is the essence of free market capitalism. Without interference of any sort, that is what rational humans will do.

    “For most of human history the vast majority of the people did not participate in markets at all. They produced what they needed to live. For most of civilized history participation in markets was secondary to production for immediate consumption. Only in the last 400 years or so has production specifically for exchange become the predominant economic system.”

    People did exchange in markets. The market has been the center of the city and the principle reason for travel for all of human history. In the last several hundred years we have simply applied better transportation, advanced productive capacity and more fluid money. The basic exchanges are still the same. Crops for cattle or gold for ploughs or dollars for computers – it is all basically the same.

    “The problem with this is that it is almost as utopian as socialism. Any system can work if people are moral; the problem is that many people choose not to be, and ruin any system that they participate in.”

    Not really, by moral I was referring to the aggregate and not necessarily the individual actors. If the principles, traditions and customs of a society are basically moral then the institutions will be basically moral despite the large quantity of sinners and the smaller quantity of deliberate sinners. In any event, a free market liberates human creativity and innovation and allows methods and means for checking and punishing the immoral actors. All government methods for checking bad behavior developed in a free market first, meaning the creativity of some individual devised the method which is used by government. Governments are inherently administrative and not creative.

    “The Church has always recognized the right and duty of the state and the people to regulate the economy to serve the common good. The state is not perfectible, and markets are not perfectible, because man as such is not perfectible; as the teaching of the Church makes clear, however, ALL of these institutions are required to serve the common good.”

    I hope I did not give the impression that I am against this sentiment. When individuals actors who assign certain duties to government and leave most to the natural market the most social benefit is realized. None are perfectible, only utopians believe that, yet we are to seek something MORE PERFECT. We are to journey as individuals and in the aggregate toward perfection knowing it is like the horizon. We can see it, we can move toward it, but we will never reach it.

    “That means that leftists are wrong to categorically dismiss the market and rail against it as inherently immoral; and it also means that rightists are wrong when they categorically reject a meaningful role for the state and the public sector in meeting people’s needs.

    Those are difficult words. What is a leftist? What is a rightist? As I understand it we have assigned the LEFT to those who advocate for absolutism and the RIGHT to those who advocate anarchy. If that is correct, then you are correct, neither option works with fallen man. I don’t subscribe to either idea, no rational person can. As with everything save for Love of Christ, balance is what is required.

    “History has indeed shown that both are necessary, and that one without the other has the potential to lead to great injustice and civil disorder.”

    I don’t think we are disputing if both are necessary, I think we are disputing the point of balance. In fact it isn’t a duality, it is inherently trinitarian.

    We need to devise an order that assigns proper roles and the balanced amount of power to three spheres:

    Church
    State
    Free Man (the market)

    Church first because the moral order belongs to the moral authority. For us that would be The Church, for others, well, they’re confused. Nevertheless, there are some basic commonalities that are true no matter what ‘denomination’ one may belong too, even pagans, atheists and followers of false religions. The historic commonality is Christian morality. Heretical Christians, non-Christians and Catholic Christians all benefit from Christian morality as taught by Mother Church. This country was founded on these principles, despite the fact that the Protestants refused to attribute the teachings to the Catholic Church.

    I think it was Patrick Henry who stated, “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    State is second in the sense that men in the aggregate have given consent and certain duties from their own sovereignty to government. Limited duties, with a specific and narrow scope. Primarily to protect LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. If government is limited to the protection of the aforementioned, not the regulation, not the promotion, not the management but simply PROTECTING, then that government is legitimate, licit and as moral as humanly possible. Prosecuting murder, especially of the pre-born and waging just war are designed to protect life. Liberty and property are protected by ensuring that the market is not coerced by anyone. Freedom of religion is obvious.

    If government is limited to those activities and respects subsidiarity (federalism) then men are free to act within the confines of good, informed conscience. Those who do not, face punishment by both the market and the government.

    All three orders are necessary, integrated and need to be balanced and coordinated appropriately. That will never happen, but it is not for us to make it happen. Our duty is to seek the more perfect integration, coordination and balance of Church, State and Free Man. The efficacy is the work of God.

  • AK,

    I agree with a lot of what you say, but I reject the strict limitations you think ought to be imposed on government.

    When I talk about not rejecting the state or markets, I am talking about the economy as well as everything else. Let me be more clear: the Church has not only supported, but insisted on, state intervention in the market when it becomes apparent that the latter cannot meet the needs of people, provide them with that which is their right as human beings with with dignity, to preserve social order, etc.

    In a modern technologically advanced society, what we cannot have is unaccountable, concentrated economic power, whether it is an outcome of markets or government decrees.

  • Joe,

    I think we agree on most things and I know we agree in the macro-cosmic sense. I think we are finding babelized disagreement in the micro-comsic sense.

    The reason for strict limitiations on the government is NOT becuase government is BAD. Authority is a good. Governmnet must be restricted because it is SANCTIONED FORCE. That is a devasting power. Used morally it is a benefit; however, if that power is used immorally, even for ‘good’ intentions, it is calamity. Governments, all kinds, are run by sinful, fallen humans. Without restraint the monopoly of power will typically attract the greedy, ambitious and worse. That means the sanctioned force of government can be in the hands of humans cooperating, willfully or negligently, with Satan. Checking government is not an indictment on government, it is an indictment on man.

    Furthermore, the Church is NOT infallible in economic matters. I respect and agree with Church teaching on the moral intent of man’s economic activity. The problem is that what the Church has insisted needs regulation is NOT the market of freely acting humans it is the very intervention of humans acting with force of government. We have to keep in mind that our sins are ever present wheter we are a businessman or a government regulator, neither is infallible and neither is exepmpt from corruption. The difference is the businessman has to operate with numerous other actors some as corrupt as he and others far less so. The government regulator has COERCIVE POWER and there is no check on his corruption becuase the government is a monopoly.

    The only market of government exists internationally and one can argue that in the last hundred years or so, we have established a global government monopoly apparatus so government monopoly has no competition. That is the problem.

    All that power concentrated in a few hands WILL invariably lead to that power being in the hands of corrput and evil men. Even a good king cannot be sure that his offspring will have a good rule. Usually for monarchs and inheritors of wealth, by the third generation it is all squandered.

    Limiting and checking the power of government is what keeps evil men in check and allows the vurtuous to benefit the most in need.

    Markets cannot create conentrated power. Only FORCE can do that. Governments role is to keep force OUT of the market so that the power is always with the lowest commong denomentator: The end user, the consumer.

  • I believe we could have a clearer discussion of the problems were we to give up believing that the U.S. of A. is basically a moral country. I have, for example, just finished reading George Archibald’s JOURNALISM IS WAR. He recounts his various investigations into the vile shenanigans in the cesspool of Washington in the past two decades.

    It is distressing to realize that all our suspicions of politicians and union leaders and CEOs and the Catholic clergy are not without foundation. We are forever hoping that somehow our politicians will not infected by the poisonous miasma that is Washington [sad that George’s glorious name should stand for base corruption].

    Two classic examples were the town hall meetings in which one Representative said that he would listen only to people from his district and was told that the participants were people from his district.
    In another the Representative proclaimed that it was his town hall meeting and he would set the rules.

    The sadness arises from the fact that these people have been blinded by the Washington miasma. They come from relatively simple backgrounds. They have not discovered the vaccine against the halls of power.

  • Gabriel,

    “I believe we could have a clearer discussion of the problems were we to give up believing that the U.S. of A. is basically a moral country.”

    Words are tricky things. They are inadequate for communicating, but the best we have available.

    The US of A IS a moral country in the sense that the principles she was founded upon are moral. She is also moral in the sense that within the context of her history, with all her blemishes and horrors, she is the most consistently moral country.

    The bulk of her people seek virtue, imperfectly, and in comparison to the peoples of Christendom, with less efficacy. Perhaps we are struggling for virtue in a world with Satan on the loose.

    Our culture is certainly NOT moral and we do have to take responsibility for that but loss of our culture does not make all of us immoral. Was anyone moral in Sodom and Gomorrah? Moral people, or at least people seeking to be moral, may be immersed in a culture that is immoral. Jesus dined with sinners and publicans. Perhaps we are here to reclaim the USA for her King.

    Our political class is overwhelmingly immoral. Thieves, usurers, liars, perverts openly displaying their homosexual proclivities, adulterers, megalomaniacs, etc. are in more abundance than moral men. This is the reason government is supposed to be BOUND with the chains of the Constitution.

    Our biggest problem is our institutional desire to evict God from public intercourse and governance. We CANNOT remain moral if we demand that he leave us alone. Without Him we are certainly immoral. The work of the enemy seems to be succeeding becuase we keep diminishing God’s role in our public lives, but this need not be so. The first amendment secures our given right to worship the God of Christ freely. We need to make a courageous, respectful and civil PROTEST against the removal of God from our public lives and our governments.

    For the LORD did not give us a Spirit of timidity.

    We need to stop being timid, cowed by political correctness and deference for the sensibilities of men. We need to walk boldly into the fire proclaiming our King. Otherwise we are just spectators to the demise of a once great nation. Silence is consent.

    Pray the Rosary with your brothers and sisters on the corner of your street, in front of the city hall, in the centers of commerce. Proclaim the King and see how many moral people will join you. Then tell us if this is still a moral country. I think she is. I beleive she is. I hope she is. The USA is consecrated to our Blessed Mother. Respect your mother and ask her for the graces to set this moral country back on the path to Heaven and away from the abyss.

    I’ll join you.

  • American Knight:
    What you write seems to me to be wish-filled thinking. Our culture, thus our country, is not moral. It has no defenses against immoral positions. For example, it may well be that a majority of Americans do not hold with abortion “except except except…”.
    Abortion is not illegal in this country.
    It appears that many [most?] couplings are not done with the marriage lines. [What society has ever survived without a clear understanding of marriage and the family?].
    What of the next stage the education of children? The school system is hostage to unions which protect mediocrity in its members and in students.
    Consider the history of the country. It took a while to slaughter enough Indians that they became no longer a problem, except that they are forced to live in reservations where education is abominable and drunkenness rife.
    Need I dwell on slavery which continued to the 1960s?
    The War on Poverty seems to have impoverished many more. Roe v. Wade was quite clearly an effort to decrease unwanted populations.
    And so on and so on and so on.

    The much praised liberty has become a liberty to do whatever you could get away with. And to avoid as much responsibility as possible – personal and public. And to call in the lawyers to protect yourself, teste the ACORN business.

    We are not on this earth to build America as the City on the Hill.

  • Gabriel,

    What you may perceive as wish-filled thinking is Hope.

    I know our culture is immoral, but as I stated in my previous post that doesn’t make the country immoral. In principle the United States of America is founded on Christian morality by sinners.

    To assume that it is an immoral country is to concede the fight. We live in an immoral country we have institutionalized evil so we are all going to Hell. I reject that.

    We live in a moral country and most of us do it immorally and we have insitutionalized evil so those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear MUST be good Christian witnesses, fight for the re-establishment of our moral principles and re-consecrate our country and our selves to the Blessed Virgin and through her immaculate hands and heart to her Son, our Lord.

    I think we are here precisely to build America as the City on a Hill and our own state, town, home and body too!

    The efficacy of that work is not for us to decide, but it is our duty to do the work with that end in mind.

    “Thy Kingdom come” That means into our hearts, but it also means into our familiies, our towns, our country and the world.

  • American Knight writes Friday, October 9, 2009 A.D.
    “I think we are here precisely to build America as the City on a Hill and our own state, town, home and body too!
    “The efficacy of that work is not for us to decide, but it is our duty to do the work with that end in mind.

    “Thy Kingdom come” That means into our hearts, but it also means into our families, our towns, our country and the world”.

    My attempt is to point out that being American is no guarantee of goodness. We have relaxed too much into the comfort of the wealth of natural resources and take it as a right.

    The Founders were political creatures [and mostly ignorantly anti-Catholic]. They had fallen for the “Enlightened” nonsense of automatic progress, a word interpreted as improvement. Yet they were not shocked by being slavers.

    You must put together for me a list of accomplishments of the U.S.A. to balance the various horrors committed in the name of Liberty and Manifest Destiny.

  • Gabriel,

    I totally agree: Being American is no guarantee of goodness. Neither is being ‘Catholic’. Far too often we Catholics are tempted (God knows I fall for it often) to lean toward conceit when it comes to our faith. I am not condemning you, I am just using a handy exapmple. You stated, “The Founders were political creatures [and mostly ignorantly anti-Catholic]. They had fallen for the “Enlightened” nonsense of automatic progress, a word interpreted as improvement. Yet they were not shocked by being slavers.”

    Your statement is correct; however, Catholics have also owned slaves and advocated for slavery. Many Catholics were involved in racist and biggotted practices as recent as the last century. So we cannot cast stones at our poor misguided Protestant brethren simply because our Church, is The one established by Christ and only we have Apostolic succession. This is true for the Church, it is not necessarily true for each Catholic.

    I suspect this is the same for Protestants, in fact it may be more excuseable for them becuase they do NOT have infallible teaching, just the pale shadows left over from when their heretical founders were Catholic.

    Since the Church is perfect and we know that Catholics are not can you draw the conclusion that the Church is imperfect or that Catholics are perfect? Of course not, The Church is the Church and we are sinners. The same analogy can be applied to our country, although less ‘perfectly’. America is good and moral, Americans may or may not be. Until all of our mores, institutions, conventions, customs, etc. are corrupted (sadly that may not be far off) then we have something good to hold on to and revert to, while correcting the mistakes of the past, which include slavery and something much worse – abortion.

    The accomplishments of the USA that balance horrors do not exist. America is not a church and she has no spiritual soul, just a spirit of principle. Theie is no balance. The slaughter of Christians at Nagasaki with atomic weapons is unexcuseable we need to transcend it, not excuse it. Nevertheless, America has done more good for the world than harm, in her time but that doesn’t mean a balance has been achieved. Keep in mind she’s a country not a person. Most of our errors are propogated by evil forces and evil men working with them. We have a struggle ahead and the outcome will determine the fate of billions. In any event, this is not the thread to truly debate this issue.

    Suffice it to say that Mackey highlights his ‘conversion’ from nice sounding anti-capitalist platitudes to the honesty of the fact that free-markets allow the morally inclined to thrive and provide for their customers, their employees and themselves for the benefit of all. In fact a free-market even allows one to glorify God in their free market activity if they so choose. Thank God for that becuase without these wealthy Catholics who thrive in the free market, we’d have even less parishes than we do. I heard that one good man underwrote the public prayer of the Holy Rosary in Kansas City for almost 200,000 of the faithful. It required a $200,000+ check – thank God for free-markets!

The Red Mass and Cardinal DiNardos Pro-Life Homily

Monday, October 5, AD 2009

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, was the chief celebrant at the annual Red Mass Cardinal DiNardo Sotomayoryesterday at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle.

The Red Mass is celebrated annually at the Washington, D.C. Cathedral and hosted by the John Carroll Society, a group of Washington area legal professionals.  The Mass is normally for for judges, attorneys, law school professors, students, and government officials.  The Mass requests guidance from the Holy Ghost for all who seek justice, and offers the opportunity to reflect on what Catholics believe is the God-given power and responsibility of all in the legal profession.

The Red Mass is so-called from the red vestments traditionally worn in symbolism of the tongues of fire that descended on the Apostles.  The most significant difference between the Red Mass and a traditional Mass is that the focuses of prayer and blessings concentrate on the leadership roles of those present.  Guidance from the Holy Ghost is asked to be bestowed on the congregants. Other blessings that are commonly requested to prevail in the minds, offices, and court rooms are Divine strength, wisdom, truth, and justice.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Obama: Right Wing Media Wrong

  • Hilarious! President Log is right!

  • Tito:

    The amazing thing about this video is that while it does not say so directly it shows that Obama is nothing but President Bush III. He has done nothing but continue the disasterous policies of his predecessor. His stimulous packages are no more than an extention of those socialist/communistic policies instituted by Bush II. His foreign/war policy is no diferent than Bush II- we are still in Iraq and expanding activity in Afgahnistan. Guantanemo is still open.

    Unfortunately, one of the things that Obama ran on was that he owuld make our government less autocratic and move away from the strong unitary executive being pushed by Bush (and every president since the ratification of the Constitution and especially since Lincoln). Obama has done nothing to reign in presidential powers, and you can be assured that the Executive Branch will claim more powers 4 or 8 years from now when he leaves office than it did in January of this year.

    As noted anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, George Mason argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists in the Constitution was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. History has proven these gentlemen entirely correct.

  • I am not so sure that ALL Presidents expandanded executive power. Lincoln? Certainly. Nevertheless, Lincoln did stand against the money power and got a bullet in the head for it. Kennedy too. They shot Reagan but missed. They’ve gotten smarter though. Executive power is way out of line but the judicial power is far worse.

    The executive is quickly becoming an impotent monarch. The real power is in the handlers of the president. That’s why you can’t tell the difference between the parties anymore. The same Commie fascists run the day-to-day machinations of government and the Fed and other trans-national banks that are all effectively coordinated.

    Obama may not have accomplished anything but he has overstepped his rhetoric and people don’t like it. Well, sane people don’t like it. This is a good thing. I think that God may have answered our prayers with BHO. We may actually get the change we hope for it’s just going to take a while.

    VA and NJ in 2009, the House in 2010 and the executive in 2012. What it will take is an unrelenting political onslaught and holding the Repubiclans to authentic conservative principles.

    That is unless BHO is the anti-Christ. Hmmm . . .

  • Pingback: President Log « The American Catholic

Saint Genesius and the Emperor

Sunday, October 4, AD 2009

Saint Genesius

The Emperor was widely regarded as the savior of Rome.  The son of slaves he had fought his way to power against the enemies of Rome.  After a half century of chaos he brought order and unity to Rome, crushing pretenders to the imperial purple and restoring the borders of the Empire against the barbarian tribes.  Under his tetrarchy system Rome would be ruled by two Emperors and two Caesars who would eventually succeed the Emperors.  Peace now reigned in the Empire after decades of strife.  Small wonder that Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, better known to history as Diocletian, was hailed as a second Romulus, a second founder of Rome. 

Continue reading...

Ahmadinejad Had a Jewish Past

Saturday, October 3, AD 2009

The disputed president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, apparently converted to Islam at the age of four (4) from Judaism along with his parents.

No joke, the man wanting to “wipe Israel off the map” was born Jewish.

Earlier this morning the Daily Telegraph of London reported,

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly Ahmadenijad is Jewishshows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

“By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society.”

A London-based expert [Ali Nourizadeh] on Iranian Jewry said that “jian” ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

“He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had,” said the Iranian-born Jew [Ali Nourizadeh] living in London. “Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran.”

Now that is revealing.

For more on this article from Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat of the Daily Telegraph of London click here.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Ahmadinejad Had a Jewish Past

  • Maybe the Jews can take up a collection and send him some lox and bagels.

    I recall that decades ago, a leader of the American Nazi Party committed suicide when it was revealed he was half-Jewish.

    Man, bitter ex-Catholics have nothing on self- hating Jews. Former Catholics who hate the Church just want to destroy the Church, not a billion Catholics. Self-loathing Jews want to destroy the Jewish people.

  • Oh, man. Hitler comparisons in 5…4…3…2… 🙂

  • Anthony,

    I was thinking that, but I didn’t opine on it to let the story tell itself.

  • Donna V.,

    How right you are.

    To think that American Jews do their best to vilify Israel at every turn is incredible.

    Self-hating is accurate.

  • Why Hitler comparisons, Anthony? Like Hitler, Amadinejad hates Jews, but I’ve never read anything to suggest Hitler was Jewish himself.

  • Hitlers mother or father was Jewish I think, that or one branch of his grandparents were Jewish, hence the comparison of both men who exhibit their self-hate towards their Jewish past.

  • Oh, and of course, there’s the case of Bobby Fischer, fully Jewish by blood, who fervertly denied it and made blatantly anti-Semitic comments. When you consider how many chess grandmasters are Jewish (including many who taught and helped Fischer), it’s a bit mind-blogging. But then, Fischer was mad.

  • Tito, I’ve never heard that and I’ve read a far amount about the Third Reich.

  • Donna V.,

    Let me take back those comments about Hitler being part-Jewish.

    It has been alleged that he was Jewish but never proven.

  • To be fair to Hitler, IIRC he was born Catholic and quite hated the Catholic Church by his teens.

  • Folks, this type of thing produced by a British tabloid should be taken with a boulder of salt. I would love the irony if it were true, but, alas, as in the case of Hitler’s alleged Jewish ancestry, a myth that has been exploded time and again, I suspect that this is all hype and no substance.

  • Interesting. An adviser of Ahmadinejad claimed that Hitler was Jewish:

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53611

    Nothing new here however. Attempts to link Jews to the Nazis are a staple of anti-Israeli propaganada throughout the Middle East.

    In regard to the Ahmadinejad story, I’ll do some research and report back when I have something solid. I suspect that this is merely a charge thrown out be political adversaries and that it would not be possible for Ahmadinejad to get so far in Iranian politics if it were true, but I’ll reserve judgment till I have more information.

  • A prescient humor piece on the topic on July 14 by the Naked Loon:

    http://nakedloon.com/news/us-world/2008/07/14/ahmadinejad-discovers-embraces-jewish-ancestry/

  • I’m torn. On one hand, I want to adhere to principle, take the high road, and say that the fact that Immadinnerjacket was once Jewish is of no political consequence. It’s something for the psychologists to mull over, but otherwise a footnote in the life of this mad man. On the other hand, I’m tempted to play into the idea of a mass Jewish conspiracy and try to convince the Iranian hardliners that he’s actually a Jewish sleeper agent, and should be dealt with post haste.

  • I am sure Gina that half of Iran is laughing about this and the other half is going, in Farsi of course, “Hmmm, you know, I always sort of thought he looked Jewish!”

  • Thank you Henry K. for that piece of information.

    Though President Ahmedinejad has repeated himself twice after that incident, there’s no question that he did say he wants to erase Israel off the map through words and deeds.

  • I am not certain if Ahmedinejad is of Jewish origin or not. But the Daily Telegraph is the only paper in England that I have any reasonable amount of respect for.

    I agree with Donald that most of the British press is sensationalistic, but there are a few gems and the Daily Telegraph is one of them.

    If more information comes out to verify or to nullify this claim, I will post it.

  • I saw this posted at Hot Air:

    “Professor David Yeroshalmi, author of The Jews of Iran in the 19th century and an expert on Iranian Jewish communities, disputes the validity of this argument. “There is no such meaning for the word ’sabour’ in any of the Persian Jewish dialects, nor does it mean Jewish prayer shawl in Persian. Also, the name Sabourjian is not a well-known Jewish name,” he stated in a recent interview. In fact, Iranian Jews use the Hebrew word “tzitzit” to describe the Jewish prayer shawl. Yeroshalmi, a scholar at Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies, also went on to dispute the article’s findings that the “-jian” ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews. “This ending is in no way sufficient to judge whether someone has a Jewish background. Many Muslim surnames have the same ending,” he stated…
    According to both Naji and Tait, Ahmadinejad’s father Ahmad was in fact a religious Shia, who taught the Quran before and after Ahmadinejad’s birth and their move to Tehran. So religious was Ahmad Sabourjian that he bought a house near a Hosseinieh, a religious club that he frequented during the holy month of Moharram to mourn the martyrdom of Imam Hossein.
    Moreover, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mother is a Seyyede. This is a title given to women whose family are believed to be direct bloodline descendants of Prophet Muhammad…
    The reason that Ahmadinejad’s father changed his surname has more to do with the class struggle in Iran. When it became mandatory to adopt surnames, many people from rural areas chose names that represented their professions or that of their ancestors. This made them easily identifiable as townfolk. In many cases they changed their surnames upon moving to Tehran, in order to avoid snobbery and discrimination from residents of the capital.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/05/aw-ahmadinejad-doesnt-have-jewish-roots-after-all/

  • No matter if he is Jewish, Muslim or a left-handed cross-dressing lesbian there is still one serious concern about him:

    He’s dangerous.

Jerusalem

Saturday, October 3, AD 2009

Something for the weekend.  An offbeat version of Jerusalem.   I think that half madman, half genius William Blake would have appreciated its quirkiness.  Compare and contrast with this more mainstream version.

And did those feet in ancient time,
    Walk upon Englands mountains green:
    And was the holy Lamb of God,
    On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

    And did the Countenance Divine,
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here,
    Among these dark Satanic Mills?

    Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
    Bring me my Arrows of desire:
    Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
    Bring me my Chariot of fire!

    I will not cease from Mental Fight,
    Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
    Till we have built Jerusalem,
    In Englands green & pleasant Land.

 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Jerusalem

What He Said

Friday, October 2, AD 2009

Here’s Prof. David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy describing politics through an analogy to sports (the easiest way to explain anything to me):

I then said something like – “but it does seem like the overall level of defense is improving all over – I see so many great plays these days . . .” before I recognized how stupid a comment that was.  Of course I was seeing more great defensive plays than I had 10 or 20 years before – because 10 or 20 years before there had been no Sportscenter (or equivalent).  In 1992 (or whenever exactly this was), I could turn on the TV and catch 20 or 30 minutes of great highlights every night, including 5 or 6 truly spectacular defensive plays; in 1980, or 1960, to see 5 or 6 truly spectacular defensive plays, you had to watch 20 or 25 hours of baseball, minimum.  [That’s what ESPN was doing, in effect – watching 10 or 12 games simultaneously and pulling out the highlights].  It was just my mind playing a trick on me; I had unconsciously made a very simple mistake.  The way in which I was perceiving the world of baseball had, with Sportscenter, changed fundamentally, but I hadn’t taken that into account.  Without thinking about it, I had plugged into a simple formula:  Old Days:             5 spectacular plays in 25 hours of baseball watching. New Days:          5 spectacular plays in ½ hour of baseball watching. And I had reached the obvious (and obviously wrong, on reflection) conclusion that the rate of spectacular playmaking had gone up.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to What He Said

  • I think there’s a lot to that — plus just that people have a short political memory. When you want to talk about sheer political bile, there’s nothing like the first 40 years of the country.

  • Yeah, back when U.S. Presidents(!) wrote stuff like “the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

  • Or when both parties made it a practice to openly question the parentage and sexual practices of the other party’s candidates in mainstream newspapers.

  • Said by Thomas Jefferson. I suspect if he had actually served in the Continental Army and participated in a battle or two he wouldn’t have been so glib about bloodshed.

    I think the political bile in our country probably reached a peak just before the Civil War. Of course it has never been particularly genteel. Truman would sometimes refer to some Republicans as fascists and Republicans would refer to Dean Acheson, Truman’s Secretary of State, a strong anti-Communist, as the “Red Dean”.

  • I agree with this theory, but an alternative view is: the anonymity of the Internet allows for more unvarnished airing of thoughts – ?

  • Well, I think there are many things going on. But I also do believe that conspiracy theories are becoming quite popular and easily spread via the internet; and once you get the theory out, the solution is “revolt” or “coup.”

    If you want to see an example of this, read the following thread from Godlikeproductions (a rather freaky place, and yet, apparently of great influence on the dark corners of the internet):

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message891244/pg1

  • An awful lot of politics is best understood by analogy to team sports.

  • Is our team winning?

  • Henry, you do manage to dig up the weirdest stuff. Maybe it’s influential in your circles, but I doubt if anyone else here has ever heard of that website.

  • Anon

    Godlikeproductions is currently in the throes of a major anti-Obama campaign, and is a source of many “tea party” and “Glen Beck” fans. It’s that kind of crowd. I run into all kinds of things and groups on the internet. But this is a rather big forum. I like looking at what the kook/conspiracy people are talking about — because, a few weeks later, much of what they say becomes talking points.

    I think it was someone there who originally made the first Obama-Joker poster, btw. I could be wrong, but I know that was the claim I saw.

  • Plus, look at the number of page views a day — it’s huge. Currently: 381,411 with 762 users online — at one time. This is not a small place.

  • I must admit I’ve never even been to this site and y’all didn’t get my curiousity up. I will observe one thing though. It is easy to write off the ‘conspiracy theorists’ but are we to assume all conspiracies are just kooky hypotheses? Is it possible that some are plausible theories?

    I don’t think that thinking aliens spawned man in the days before history, or even kidnapped people in the 1950s or simply blame it on the Jews is sane. Those are obviously kooky. I am referring to plausible conspiracies.

    Obviously the biggest real conspiracy is sited in Ephesians 6:12, but how is it manifested? Wouldn’t it make sense that evil men are conspiring to bring about Satan’s reign?

    McCarthy exposed the Communist conspiracy (it is still going on though). The Federal Reserve is a conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy. The diamond market is a conspiracy. There must be more. The difficulty is sorting the truth from myth, but I think we have to be careful not to dismiss all conspiracy theories as kooky. I am sure the conspirators like all the dissinformation and kooky theories becuase it provides them cover.

    For example Area 51, a favorit among UFO enthusiasts. I am fairly confident that their are no space aliens there, but something secret is going on. Maybe they developed the stealth technology there and used the alien cover up to keep the Sovs and other enemies confused. I’m OK with that, one of the few things I think government should keep secret is defense tech and defense intel, with Congressional oversight though – but we shouldn’t know about. That is a benign ‘conspiracy’ becuase it benefits national security. Are there others? Are some sinister?

    We have to be prudent and use proper discernment but I think outright dismissal is just as bad a mistake.

    I could be wrong because the Great Gazoo just dictated this whole post to me and he invented a machine that will destroy the space-time continuum.

  • Henry,

    A forum that has 700 people online at a time may be “not small”, but in the context of the US population, it’s certainly not large either. Plugging it into Alexa and comparing it to sites like freerepublic.com and redstate.com, it looks like godlikeproductions.com has a fair amount of traffic, though much of it from the same people visiting again and again. Comparing it to several other political and news sites, it shows up, but it’s pretty small fries.

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/foxnews.com+godlikeproductions.com+freerepublic.com+dailykos.com+huffingtonpost.com

    As for who came up with the Obama as Joker image, that one was broken by the mainstream media: It was a Kucinich supporter in Chicago.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-artist.html

  • DC

    When talking about big, it is of course in relation to the internet. Quantcast rates it 4992 in the top 5000, and says it reaches 325K people a month. godlikeproductions.com

    http://www.quantcast.com/godlikeproductions.com

    Second, that doesn’t say he is not a member of GLP.

  • Another thing that might be playing into the effect you note is that folks are more and more willing to speak up with uneducated and/or poorly sourced opinions– for example, the other day I saw my dad get mad at the TV for the first time _EVER_ when he was looking for a news program to watch in some rare free time– MSNBC was doing a thing on the mustang roundups, and the “expert” they were interviewing stated that if these “wild animals” weren’t “saved,” they’d be butchered for dog meat right in that very state. It’s been illegal to butcher horses for years in the US, as dad knows because of the horrific abuse it results in.
    Dad didn’t get upset until the newscaster treated such a flat-ignorant statement as gospel truth– basic fact-checking should’ve stopped that, and it wasn’t even a live interview. They just couldn’t be bothered to fact-check the person they were interviewing as an expert.

    If a cable news company spreads such at best ignorant information, of course there’s going to be a lot more folks who believe deeply, honestly and honorably things that are in no way shape or form related to objective reality, just because they have a tainted information source. (Don’t get me started on Wiki…..)

  • Henry,

    Ah, thanks for setting them up on quantcast (or at least, their data wasn’t available on there last night.)

    Interesting data on what other sites those folks are into:

    Affinity
    zetatalk.com 164.0x
    whatdoesitmean.com 134.0x
    urbansurvival.com 129.1x
    surfingtheapocalypse… 128.0x
    mt.net 100.4x
    rumormillnews.com 100.3x
    conspiracyplanet.com 94.8x
    theforbiddenknowledg… 91.5x

    Looks like it appeals to a pretty generic conspiracy demographic more than a right wing one, though that doesn’t mean that among conspiracy theorists they aren’t more right leaning than left leaning. (Though of course, when you get that fringy, the two wings tend to meet. For instance, the “what if McCain is a Manchurian candidate” meme you were interested in back during the election held appeal for both right wing and left wing crazies, as I recall. Indeed, now I look at it, one of your sources was NewsMax. Might want to find better reading material…)

    300k estimated people viewing a month is certainly a large number, though of course smaller than the 1 million people per month for NationalReview.com and the 8.8 million per month for FoxNews.com. (And showing where Americas real priorities are, a full 16 million hit ESPN.com every month and 82 million hit YouTube.)

    I’ll agree it’s disturbing that 0.1% of the US population per month bother with such conspiracy mongering, though I suppose we can hope that many of them are reasonable people who just happen to follow a google link and then high tail it away with disgust once they look around a bit.

    Still, that it gets any attention at all I suppose just goes to show why no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

  • I’ll agree it’s disturbing that 0.1% of the US population per month bother with such conspiracy mongering, though I suppose we can hope that many of them are reasonable people who just happen to follow a google link and then high tail it away with disgust once they look around a bit.

    Don’t underestimate the entertainment value, either– I adore “Coast to Coast AM” and “PID Radio” and “Cryptomundo,” among other hidden knowlege type media… of course, I also use to like buying “Weekly World News.” (Batboy!)
    Just because folks are visiting doesn’t mean they’re agreeing.

    I kind of wonder what the effect of identity blocking measures would be on the site metrics, too– if it’s raw click-throughs, then folks who are visiting the same page several times will inflate the number, while if it’s visits-per-IP-in-a-day, the folks worried about being tracked will inflate the numbers, as would folks who click through at work and home. The more fringe-ie folks are more likely to use measures to keep from being tracked….