The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial: Preaching civil rights without a mention of their divine origin?

Tuesday, October 18, AD 2011

An article in the Church Report Daily makes note of something The Motley Monk didn’t know and hadn’t heard reported on any of the news reports: The word “God” does not appear in any of the quotes attributed to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on his new memorial in Washington, DC.  This omission, despite the fact that the civil rights leader preached often about the divine origin of these rights.

 

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial
in Washington, DC

 

The Director of the Christian Defense Coalition in Washington, DC, the Rev. Patrick J.  Mahoney, commented:

Just a few days ago I walked to the Dr. King Memorial for a moment of  inspiration, reflection and prayer. It was the first time I had visited the  memorial.

The setting and  vision of the memorial was powerful and moving and served as a prophetic reminder that we must always stand for human  rights and justice.

As I  walked around the memorial, I was stunned and shocked to see that the mention of  “God” was not included in any of the quotes from Dr. King on the granite wall  surrounding his sculpture.

Dr.  King was an ordained Christian minister and pastor who made faith in God and the  teachings of Christ the central part of his life and message.  The heart of the  civil rights movement was rooted in the Church and drew its strength from  the timeless truths proclaimed by God.

Not to include any mention of “God” in the quotes at the  memorial is a betrayal of the life, legacy and teachings embraced and lived by  Dr. King.  I think he would have been stunned and disappointed to see this  oversight.

 

This omission—the failure to include the mention of God in  the memorial—strikes, like the Rev. Mahoney as betraying Dr. King’s life, legacy, and teachings.  After all, he was an ordained Christian minister and preacher.

As bad as that betrayal may be, perhaps this “omission” is actually a “commission,” that is, a deliberate and stealthy act to avoid using the word “God” in the King Memorial.  If so, this act provides clear evidence not just of a culture that has sold itself out to the gospel of political correctness but which is also hellbent on removing public expressions of faith and God from the public square.

What’s next?  To remove the references to God and the Creator in the nation’s founding documents?

 

 

To read the article in the Church Report Daily, click on the following link:
http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=siteContent.default&objectID=141441

Continue reading...

63 Responses to The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial: Preaching civil rights without a mention of their divine origin?

  • I can’t understand this weeping and wailing over MLK’s statue not containing any referance to God. He was nothing but a communist dupe (at the very least!), a phlagiarist, a sexually promiscuous whoremonger, and a man who stirred up riots wheree7ver he went. Religion was only a cloak for this man, for he gave up formal belief in what Christianity he knew about by the time he was an adult. I think it’s entirely appropiate that his graven image was carved by someone from Red China. One unbeliver should do the honors for another one.

  • Take a pill. The man had a pair of quondam Communist Party members in his entourage. That was all. His social ideology bore little resemblance to Marxism. His public career began in 1955. The mass rioting in this country occurred during the years running from 1964 to 1971. Care to name which, of more than 700 urban riots which occurred during those years, was catalyzed by one of his public appearances?

  • Pingback: The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial: Preaching civil rights without a mention of their divine origin? – fullarmorofgodblogs
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Religion wasn’t his first interest. He had to become a minister in order to be a respected civil rights voice. I wouldn’t worry about this. As for Mr. Dalton, most of those rioting during his appearances were the segregationists.

  • Art, King’s commnist connections were well known enough that the Kennedy’s told him to distance himself from all known Red associates that he had. Also King attended the Highlander Folk School which was founded by communists. Quondam, Art?
    His social ideology was nothing more than the social gospel and the social justice garbage pushed by liberals and communists. That was his real religion, since he abandoned any Christianity he had by the time he was an adult.
    Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the phrase “stirred up riots”. “Stirred up violence” would be the right phrase to use. King’s so-called “non-violence” provoked violence in every city he went to. If you defy a lawfull order from a police officer, you’re going to provoke force from the same. As for the segregationist rioting, could it be that King’s provocative methods of forcing blacks into places they were not wanted (like restraunts) drove many people into a frenzy? Oh, and I also noticed that children were put in harms way (like in Birmingham ) by civil rights organizers. Was this part of the social justice thingee? Just asking.

  • King was a flawed messenger of a righteous cause. The deprivation of basic civil rights that Blacks had suffered through for centuries in our country was a blot on American honor. He deserves to be honored by all Americans for his role in removing that blot.

  • King’s commnist connections were well known enough that the Kennedy’s told him to distance himself from all known Red associates that he had.

    The ‘known red associates’ were two men, Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell, who had been members of the Communist Party prior to 1958.

  • This site gives the quotations to be engraved on the memorial. Among them:

    “We are determined here in Montgomery to work until justice runs ‘down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.’”

    “To return hate for hate does nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love.”

    “Hatred paralyzes life, love releases it. Hatred confuses life, love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life, love illuminates it.”

    None of them uses the word “God”, but they are definitely the words of a preacher. I wouldn’t look at them and think that they were minimizing the role of Christian faith in the man’s life.

  • Art, the “Civil Rights” movement was shot through with leftists, communists, and socialists from the very begining, so there was a heck of a lot more commies than these “known ones, in the movement. A simple google search will confirm this. BTW Art, you forgot Bayard Ruskin, a queer, as well as a communist.
    Don, I’m surprised that you would use that logical fallacy “He was a flawed messenger of a rightous cause”. Don, the civil rights movement was a radical , socialist humbug from the begining. Since you are a lawyer, an officer of the court, how can you call a movement that deliberately provoked violence to achieve its goals “a rightous cause”? The homosexual rights movement is using the exact same methods that the radical blacks used, are they “flawed messengers of a rightous cause” too?

  • I think you have confused Bayard Rustin with someone else. Antecedent to his association with MLK he was on the staff of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (IIRC his family was Quaker).

    Rustin’s sexual perversions were something he was (given the time) eccentrically public about. At the same time, he had little or no involvement with political homosexuality. After 1964, he was a fairly marginal figure in an among black politicians, in great measure because he had no interest in promoting institutionalized political patronage. The organizations he was associated with were those of his own creation (The A. Philip Randolph Institute’) and Social Democrats, USA. The latter was a desendant of the old socialist party run by Penn Kemble and notable for being vigorously anti-Communist in a way common-and-garden politicians in the Democratic Party were not.

    The Communist Party had in 1947 about 100,000 members. A decade later they were reduced to a few thousand. The Socialist Party was in 1947 a fairly benign organization more antagonistic to the Communist Party that was some elements of the Democratic Party. After 1950, it was of consequence only in Wisconsin; it had only a few thousand members elsewhere.

    The fact that old Socialists were active in protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is of scant interest. The Communist Party itself was too small to cause much trouble even if its residual membership had retained the sort of organizational skill a previous generation of Communists had had.

  • Stephen, the difference between calling the civil rights movement a “righteous cause” and using the same designation for the homosexual rights movement should be obvious.

  • “Don, the civil rights movement was a radical , socialist humbug from the begining.”
    Bunk. There was nothing socialist or radical in Blacks being able to vote, drink from common water fountains, being free to eat at the restaurants they wished to patronize, and, in general, being treated as equals rather than as some sort of inferior species. King was completely non-violent, something that could not be said for the segregationists who were defending a shameful, and un-American, system.

  • Let us keep on track here, and keep our heads. There is not the slightest question about Mr King’s amorous adventures. To deny that he was a hypocrite of the first order is to deny reality. You may not like to hear that, just as I do not like to hear of the moral lapses of my own clergymen, but like it or not I have to face the evidence.

    To those who heap scorn on others who point out that wherever Mr King went riots soon followed, again, face the realities. You can attribute whatever saintly qualities to him that you want if you believe in his cause, but you mustn’t expect everyone to share these illusions.

    As for his Communist sympathies, they are too well catalogued to deny. Even Bobby Kennedy, a supporter of King, was worried about these connections and tried to make him see that such things would do him no good. King basically told him to take a hike. One of the words he used to Kennedy was “revenge” , which astounded Kennedy and made him think that this movement of King’s was not as lofty as had been previously believed. Apparently, in the somewhat twisted logic of Mr King it was necessary to punish whites for the supposed “crimes” of slaveholders, even those whites whose parents and grandparents emigrated to the US in the 20th century and had nothing whatever to do with slavery in the antebellum South.

    As to the actual results of the King years, we have only to look around us. If you think that what is going on among blacks today is an improvement over what was going on in previous years, then I don’t know what to say to you. I seriously question what actual good was accomplished by these people. When I see an admitted 75% illegitimacy rate among blacks today (up from about 40% in the pre-civil rights days) I’m not sure these people have seen an improvement in their race. A “righteous cause” generally is promoted by good people for a good end and that being the case it might be difficult to call the 60s civil rights movement a righteous cause. One very obvious result of this cause has been to precisely reverse the injustices so that now it is whites (and white males in particular) who are holding the dirty end of the stick. True equality was not what the Kings of the world had in mind, and in that he and his followers succeeded all to well.

    A statue of him in Washington, a city that lives in a delusional world, could not therefore be more appropriate.

  • As to the actual results of the King years, we have only to look around us. If you think that what is going on among blacks today is an improvement over what was going on in previous years, then I don’t know what to say to you. I seriously question what actual good was accomplished by these people….

    One very obvious result of this cause has been to precisely reverse the injustices so that now it is whites (and white males in particular) who are holding the dirty end of the stick.

    Which is it? Were blacks subjected to injustices that were corrected by the civil rights movement or not? You can’t say that injustice was somehow reversed otherwise. And there is something of a logical error in mistaking correlation for causation: you need to bring more to the plate than the existence of black family breakdown with the legislative enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Black family structures have always been more vulnerable than middle class white ones–i.e., as far back as the turn of the 20th Century, black women were several times more likely to work outside of the home than white women.

    And while I’m not a fan of affirmative action except for limited, restitutionary purposes, there is a world of difference between the problems of affirmative action and the statist viciousness of Jim Crow. Frankly, I don’t know what to say to anyone who argues otherwise.

  • Bunk Dan. Before the Civil Rights Movement Blacks were effectively disenfranchised in the South and treated as third class helots. Treatment in the North was only marginally better. As Catholics we should rejoice that such injustice came to an end.

    The pathologies that you observe among blacks are also present among whites. Whites now have an illegitimacy rate of 28.1% up from a 6% illegitimacy rate in 1970. I doubt if Blacks enjoying equal rights suddenly caused whites to more than quadruple their rate of illegitimacy in four decades. Such pathologies are not a result of the Civil Rights Movement but due to the Sexual Revolution, wrong-headed welfare policies, and the devastating impact of illlegal drugs, along with various other developments in our society.

  • As for his Communist sympathies, they are too well catalogued to deny.

    Two people associated with the staff of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had been members of the Communist Party. How does that translate into ‘well catalogued’ ‘Communist sympathies’? (There were a number of one-time Communists on the masthead of National Review as well, btw).

    To those who heap scorn on others who point out that wherever Mr King went riots soon followed, again, face the realities.

    Neither you nor Stephen Dalton have given us the time and place of even one riot (and you have 300-odd to choose from occuring between July of 1964 and April of 1968) coincident with one of Dr. King’s public appearances, much less a riot incited by Dr. King.

  • Dan – You say “let us keep on track here”. Fine. Where in the article was there any discussion of communism or philandery? Or, for that matter, of the more destructive elements within the civil rights movement, or of the increased rate of illegitimacy in recent years?

  • Dan, yesterday I took my elderly uncle to the hopsital for treatment. In the 1950s that would not have been possible in my town. Before King the hospital was segregated and there was nothing for blacks. My grandfather died at home in 1960 because the staff would not treat him. When my mother was a girl whites would not allow blacks to worship in the same parish. Thanks to St. Katherine Drexel a church for blacks was built. Today I go to whatever parish I feel like going to. Everything has changed, thank God.
    King was a flawed man. I’m not sure how Christian he really was. He was an adulterer. On the night before he died he was with a woman who was not his wife. We’ve all heard the stories. And yet, I also know that if it wasn’t for King I would not have the wonderful life I have now. Good was done.

  • Dan, thanks for backing me up on this.
    Don, you make a big deal out of these three things, voting, drinking from segregated drinking fountains, and wanting to eat in white restraunts. Don, the reasons why blacks were denied the right to vote was that in the post Civil War period, the blacks were pawns of the Repubican Party. The federal government was also forcing blacks into government offices against the will of the disfranchised Southern people. The blacks were told by the Feds they were the equals of the beaten Southerners. This led to aggressive behaviour by the blacks against the whites that led to violation of persons and property. The reaction? Massive passive and active resistance against this early attempt at social enginering by the federal government. Increased illfeelings between the North and South. Increased illfeelings between blacks and whites. This was good, right?
    Drinking from common water fountains? Don, in light of what I just said, do you really think that would have been a good idea back then? Would you have really wanted a black person beaten or killed because they drank from a white’s only fountain?
    Wanting to eat in a restraunt they wished to patronize? Restraunts are usually private property, are they not? If I don’t want someone on my property, I have the right to tell them they are not welcome to do so.
    Maybe it wasn’t socialistic for blacks to want these things, but as I’ve already said, the civil rights movement was dominated by liberal, socialistic, and outright commnistic elements from the very start. The blacks are worst off than they were 60 years ago. All I have to do to see proof of this is to read todays edition of the Peoria Journal Star. About once or twice a month another senseless shooting or murder occurs on the south side, were most of the blacks live. One shooting occured a mile and a half from were I live. The shooters and the victims were southsiders. And I live ten miles out in the country from Peoria! It was the socialist enginering that has been going on in this country since the post civil war days that has caused a lot of this garbage. It will only get better when the American people decide that the government has no right to dictate to them who they can associate with

  • Blacks were denied their rights Stephen because of simple racism. Your attempts to justify it are wrong. If you had been born with a black skin instead of a white skin you would regard such attempts to justify the treatment of Blacks as third class helots as completely shameful, which, indeed, they are.

  • I agree that MLK Jr was hardly an example of Christian chastity. That commandment about adultery was more than an inconvenience to him. But the overall effect he had on society has, I think, been salutory. Yes, there probably is more crime, discontent and unrest in black communities than in white. I am not trained in the sociology to understand all the reasons for this. But in the last analysis, God created all men equal in dignity. St. Paul said there is no Jew or Greek in God’s sight; taken to the next level, doesn’t that mean there is no white man or black man in God’s sight, but just men?

    By the way, with all this talk about MLK Jr. and Civil Rights and Blacks vs Whites, is there anything wrong with me (white or Caucasian by accident of birth) dating that pretty grocery store lady (black or of African descent by accident of birth) whom I asked to dinner the other day? I have to telephone her tonight to confirm the arrangements.

    PS, I’m going to dinner with her anyways, no matter what anyone says, and might even take her to next week’s Bible Study on Romans, but I was just wondering…………

  • “is there anything wrong with me (white or Caucasian by accident of birth) dating that pretty grocery store lady (black or of African descent by accident of birth) whom I asked to dinner the other day? I have to telephone her tonight to confirm the arrangements.”

    No, unless she is a fan of Barry Manilow. Some things are simply beyond the pale.

  • The federal government was also forcing blacks into government offices against the will of the disfranchised Southern people

    Would you care to explain why black citizens should not compete for elective and appointive offices? Or why their freedom to do so should be at the discretion of the proximate white population?

    It will only get better when the American people decide that the government has no right to dictate to them who they can associate with

    You are confounding laws on ‘public accommodations’, ‘equal employment opportunity’ and ‘open housing’, which do interfere with freedom of contract and association by compelling certain sorts of economic relations which would not otherwise take place, with the whole body of Jim Crow law and practice. The courts and the police were badly corrupted and comprehensively untrustworthy; retail enterprises and public facilities were segregated by law; black clientele were short-changed in public works and services; and black taxpayers were denied the franchise through a combination of chicanery and violence. There is not one libertarian argument in favor of any of these other measures. Stop it.

  • Don, you claim I’m trying to justify racism. Really? In all the posts I have made on TAC on King, I have not made one statement claiming Blacks are biologically inferior to Whites. I don’t believe that God made the Black man’s genetics inferior to mine. Since I have some Black ancestory, I don’t see how I can believe that a part of me is inferior to the rest of me. All of my criticisms have been about bad behaviors and false beliefs. is criticizing bad behaviors and false beliefs the new racism? OMG, i’m a racist pig! LOL! Well then, I guess it’s racist to mention the overwhelming cases of Black/White crime interactions involve the White guy as the victim? And Don, yes there was racism in the South, of course there was! But as I already pointed out, the policy of the federal government toward the defeated Southerners and the aggressive behavior of the Blacks toward the Whites under their new freedom caused the feelings toward the Blacks to harden further. So it’s no wonder why the Blacks were treated like helots when the Reconstruction ended. The Whites were afraid of Blacks because of what happened during that time. They wanted to be safe from what they endured during that period. The only way these people, scarred by the war and the occupation, thought they could be safe was to practise rigid segragation. From our viewpoint of 150 years in the future, what they did was draconian. From their point of view, they were trying to insure the safety of their communities from the terror and anarchy of the Reconstruction era. It’s a pity that the majority of the posters here, with the exception of Dan, can’t see past their deeply held emotional prejudices and biases to actually do some reading in books and articles that don’t parrot the establishment line.

  • No Stephen, Blacks were effectively disenfranchised for almost a century after the Civil War. To try to write this off simply as an after effect of the Civil War is not accurate. Blacks were disenfranchised because they were blacks and for no other reason. “Redeemer” white governments after Reconstruction fought to take away the franchise from Blacks not because they were Republicans but because they were Black. Evidence for this is demonstrated by the fact that there were a few areas of white Republican strength, most notably in East Tennessee. No action was taken by the “Redeemer” governments to take the franchise away from White Republicans.

    Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina on March 23, 1900 in a speech in the Senate summed up what happened to the rights of blacks throughout the South:

    “We did not disfranchise the negroes until 1895. Then we had a constitutional convention convened which took the matter up calmly, deliberately, and avowedly with the purpose of disfranchising as many of them as we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. We adopted the educational qualification as the only means left to us, and the negro is as contented and as prosperous and as well protected in South Carolina to-day as in any State of the Union south of the Potomac. He is not meddling with politics, for he found that the more he meddled with them the worse off he got. As to his “rights”—I will not discuss them now. We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be equal to the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores. But I will not pursue the subject further.”

    Of course “Pitchfork” Ben prettied up the process for a national audience. Rights were taken away from Blacks in South Carolina through a long process of violence and murder. Tillman was involved in one notorious incident, the Hamburg massacre, that Tillman bragged about when he ran for governor in 1890.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_Massacre

    Race hatred cause the disenfranchisement of Blacks and nothing else.

  • I’m not going to argue with Don about history. I will say this, though, about Don’s response to Stephen: so what? Does the reason for segregation 100 years ago in any way affect the righteousness of the cause of civil rights 50 years ago? Dan says that a righteous cause is promoted by good people for a good end. I’d disagree with the first part of that statement, but again, that doesn’t change the last part. Is equality of the races a worthy goal or not? At some point I think Stephen’s got to come to terms with the fact that he is – effectively – arguing that equality isn’t a worthy goal.

  • “Is equality of the races a worthy goal or not?”

    All men regardless of race are created equal in dignity. God does that. Individual men can recognize and accept that, or can reject that and produce, perpetuate and exacerbate racial strife.

    Now being created equal in dignity does not necessarily imply equality in function or ability. For example, Caucasians may have a propensity to immunity to certain diseases that those of African descent generally don’t. And vice versa: those of African descent may have a propensity to immunity to certain diseases that Caucasians don’t. I am not a physician, so I don’t know, but that certainly seems credible. Does that make them unequal in dignity?

    There may be other differences. Perhaps those of descent from certain places in Africa may tend generally to be better runners overall, and those from certain places in Europe may tend generally to be better swimmers overall. I used to run triathlons and a lot of times I saw that to be the case, but there were always exceptions and I didn’t do a scientific study, so I simply assumed that the black guy who beat me on the road race did so because he trained harder and longer than I did, and I reaped the reward for slacking off. Right now I am over weight and out of shape, and regardless of race I would be last at the finish line.

    😉

    Maybe there are certain cognitive talents that those of African descent generally excel at, and perhaps there are other cognitive talents that those of Caucasian descent generally excel at. The same is true of those of Oriental descent. I don’t know. But these are gross generalizations and they can’t be used to make rules to apply to every individual case. More importantly, they detract not one iota from being created equal in dignity.

    The point is that God created man with diversity, and diversity is a good thing (I can’t believe I wrote, “diversity is a good thing,” given all the loaded liberal connotations that has). God wasn’t boring in what He did. He didn’t create everyone the same. He gave us different gifts and talents and abilities. Some may be equally spread throughout the major racial groups and some may not be – I am no geneticist, so I wouldn’t know. Indeed, none of that makes the black race, white race, yellow race or red race inferior or superior. It makes them not the same. Nevertheless, one can’t say that “blacks are dumber and whites are smarter” or vice versa. That’s ridiculous (and completely contradicted by the facts). Rather, God loves diversity, but when it comes to sin and righteousness and salvation, there is no Jew or Greek, no black or white. If we don’t treat each other as we expect to be treated (i.e., the Golden Rule), then there is a very warm place for us.

    On a side note, if there is extra-terrestrial intelligence, I think the reason why these aliens haven’t visited Earth (or if they have, they’ve been awfully secretive) is because if this strife and prejudice is how we treat each other, then what would we do to them were they to reveal themselves?

  • Wow, Don’s quote of Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman reveal him to be quite the racist!

  • That was one of “Pitchfork’s” tamer addresses Paul. In South Carolina speeches he usually didn’t both using the term “negro”.

  • I’m not going to cast aspersions on MLK without mentioning his deep courage and resolve. His tactics were sometimes questionable and he was clearly being manipulated at times. But this man went up against people who bombed churches, for Pete’s sake.

    Donald R. McClarey writes:
    “The pathologies that you observe among blacks are also present among whites. Whites now have an illegitimacy rate of 28.1% up from a 6% illegitimacy rate in 1970. I doubt if Blacks enjoying equal rights suddenly caused whites to more than quadruple their rate of illegitimacy in four decades. Such pathologies are not a result of the Civil Rights Movement but due to the Sexual Revolution, wrong-headed welfare policies, and the devastating impact of illlegal drugs, along with various other developments in our society.”

    Unfortunately, I think a good case can be made that the civil rights movement enabled the sexual revolution and the expulsion of morally conservative Catholics from power.

    Look at the reaction to the Moynihan Report on illegitimacy in the black community. Because of hypersensitive anti-racism, he was accused of undermining the civil rights movement for making recommendations that would strengthen the black community.

    There are real racial disparities in sexual vice. If society upheld traditional morals, for instance, by shaming and marginalizing men who fathered children out of wedlock, these penalties would adversely affect the black community. The civil rights movement was all about removing disparate treatment, so public morals couldn’t be defended.

    Sexual revolutionaries did co-opt the civil rights movement, but that’s in part because it was amenable to co-optation.

    Most of all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “sex” a protected class and thus enabled feminists to take power and trash the culture.

    But also the civil rights movement itself was bad for urban Catholics.

    We all know that Margaret Sanger and PP co-opted black leaders. Black civil rights leaders opposed to birth control were marginalized. The civil rights movement pushed other co-opted black leaders into positions of power and influence, at the expense of both white southerners and northern Catholic ethnics (and the most morally conservative blacks).

    At the same time, integration efforts helped destroy uniformly Catholic neighborhoods and labor unions. Racial minorities received preferential treatment within the Democrats, in government employment and in the major media. Anti-racism helped create a soft approach to crime, which made longtime Catholic neighborhoods unsafe.

    How many beautiful parish churches have had to be abandoned because the neighborhood became entirely Black Protestant? How could the sexual revolution possibly have been checked, if traditionally Catholic centers of power were destroyed?

  • “Unfortunately, I think a good case can be made that the civil rights movement enabled the sexual revolution and the expulsion of morally conservative Catholics from power. ”

    No, except for taking place at the same time. You might as well say that Vatican II caused the Sexual Revolution.

    “Most of all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “sex” a protected class and thus enabled feminists to take power and trash the culture.”

    Untrue. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act merely bans discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The feminist movement was not created by Title VII and would have existed without it.

    “Black civil rights leaders opposed to birth control were marginalized. The civil rights movement pushed other co-opted black leaders into positions of power and influence, at the expense of both white southerners and northern Catholic ethnics (and the most morally conservative blacks).”

    Simply untrue. Blacks rose to political power where they predominated. Southern whites and urban Catholics continued to wield power in areas where they predominated. The Democrat party as a whole shifted to the Left, a trend which was underlined when McGovern was nominated in 1972, largely a product of the anti-war movement and not the civil rights movement. Many southern whites and northern Catholics began a trek to the Republican party as a result.

    “At the same time, integration efforts helped destroy uniformly Catholic neighborhoods and labor unions.”

    Untrue as to Catholic neighborhoods and the composition of labor unions where Catholics are in the majority. Plenty of such areas remain up in the Chicago metro area for example. Civil rights legislation allowed blacks to live where they wished and not to be discriminated against when they joined unions. Certainly the perpetuation of a regime of official racial discrimination against blacks was too high a price to keep some Catholic neighborhoods lilly-white?

    There are legitimate grievances due to affirmative action, which is simply racial discrimination with the colors reversed. However, the basic thrust of the original Civil Rights movement to end the treatment of blacks as third class helots in this nation was right, proper and very long overdue.

  • Re: Civil rights act and “sex” as a protected category

    Allan Carlson’s essay “THE FAMILY FACTORS” backs up my interpretation of the 1964 act as the revolutionary watershed for feminism. But he also reminds me that the addition of “sex” to the bill was a desperate, foolish attempt by segregationists to kill it. So arguably the segregationists are responsible for the boost to feminism, not the civil rights movement proper. So I grant my point was tangential about only an indirect consequence of the CRM.

    McGovern implemented racial and sex-based quotas in the Democratic Party. He unseated Mayor Daley’s Illinois delegation to the 1972 convention and put Jesse Jackson’s delegation in, on the grounds the delegation was not diverse enough. This is a clear instance of Catholic “machine politics” succumbing to the push for diversity. Examples like these played out on the state and local levels, gradually pushing out moral conservatives on the grounds they aren’t diverse enough. Would preference for Jesse Jackson over Mayor Daley really have happened without the civil rights movement and the dedication to anti-racism it created? (Granted, Jackson was pro-life at the time, but his allies sure weren’t.)

    “Untrue as to Catholic neighborhoods and the composition of labor unions where Catholics are in the majority. Plenty of such areas remain up in the Chicago metro area for example.”

    I’m not talking about total destruction, I’m talking about destruction extensive enough to destroy Catholics’ capacities to set the agenda in a major city or in a major labor union.

    “Certainly the perpetuation of a regime of official racial discrimination against blacks was too high a price to keep some Catholic neighborhoods lilly-white?”

    In some neighborhoods, it was a choice between keeping Catholic neighborhoods and having them replaced with non-Catholic blacks. The Catholics scattered to the lilly-white suburbs. So you still end up with segregation, but also an empty parish church and a more atomized Catholic community.

    I don’t think that’s a fair trade-off. If it was the only way to fix things, then it was a tragedy.

    “There are legitimate grievances due to affirmative action, which is simply racial discrimination with the colors reversed. However, the basic thrust of the original Civil Rights movement to end the treatment of blacks as third class helots in this nation was right, proper and very long overdue.”

    Affirmative action or its equivalent is the major way for companies and governments to defend themselves against discrimination lawsuits and bad publicity from CRM-descended groups. Given these factors, I don’t see how you can avoid preferential practices favoring protected classes.

    Back to the point about the sexual revolution getting a boost from the civil rights movement, it’s clear that the civil rights movement helped discredit the past and helped weaken “mere conservatism,” which included conservative sexual morals. The mechanisms I’ve tried to describe also weakened Catholic communities, and thus their ability to resist the sexual revolution.

    What do you think of my point about the Moynihan Report? Surely fear of frivolous or self-serving accusations of racism still keeps people from speaking out about the problems of family breakdown.

  • “McGovern implemented racial and sex-based quotas in the Democratic Party. He unseated Mayor Daley’s Illinois delegation to the 1972 convention and put Jesse Jackson’s delegation in, on the grounds the delegation was not diverse enough. This is a clear instance of Catholic “machine politics” succumbing to the push for diversity. ”

    It was a clear indication that McGovern would go down to a truly devastating defeat in Illinois in November which he did, along with the rest of the nation except Massachusetts which he barely won. The Daley machine remained alive and well until ’76 when Daley died. His son, Richie the Lesser, resurrected the machine and ran Chicago for two decades until his recent retirement. The levers of power in Cook county remain largely in white hands, with some black and a few Hispanic hands tossed in, almost all of them corrupt no matter what the skin color.

  • “I’m not talking about total destruction, I’m talking about destruction extensive enough to destroy Catholics’ capacities to set the agenda in a major city or in a major labor union. ”

    Untrue as to Chicago where the Mayor, until the beginning of this year, was a Catholic, as were most of his chief lieutenants. Of course Daley was a pro-abort which is typical of urban Catholic politicians. Pardon me if I do not weep for any problems collecting votes which anti-discrimination legislation has caused them. From a downstate perspective in Illinois there is little to choose between liberal white and liberal black Democrat politicians from Chicago, no matter what religion they claim to observe.

  • “But he also reminds me that the addition of “sex” to the bill was a desperate, foolish attempt by segregationists to kill it.”

    Perhaps, historians are not certain. In any case it was almost completely superfluous since Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm

    The addition of Tital VII had no impact on the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was largely considered a non-issue at the time.

  • “The Catholics scattered to the lilly-white suburbs. So you still end up with segregation, but also an empty parish church and a more atomized Catholic community.”

    The white exodus to the suburbs was already beginning prior to the Civil Rights Act. People went to the suburbs for other reasons than race, as many former denizens of urban rat mazes would be happy to attest. Blacks of course were beginning a similar exodus. The largest trend in the past decade has been Blacks moving to the South in very large numbers. These shifts in populations are an on-going process and have many causes with race, increasingly, less and less significant.

  • “Back to the point about the sexual revolution getting a boost from the civil rights movement, it’s clear that the civil rights movement helped discredit the past and helped weaken “mere conservatism,” which included conservative sexual morals.”

    Actually the Civil Rights Movement coincided with the rise of the modern conservative political movement. Politically conservatives in this country are much stronger than they were in 1964. An honest look at the past is always a good thing. History always needs to be painted “warts and all”. In regard to civil rights, America, at her best, has always had people who have spoken up for those left out of the American commitment to “liberty and justice for all”. The Civil Rights Movement underlined the American capacity to take a hard look in the mirror and correct abuses through the political process. This is an on-going process that will never be complete as long as the nation endures, and I thank God for it.

  • “What do you think of my point about the Moynihan Report? Surely fear of frivolous or self-serving accusations of racism still keeps people from speaking out about the problems of family breakdown.”

    The white illegitimacy rate is now higher than the black illegitimacy rate that Moynihan decried. You are correct that fear of being called racist is one reason that this issue is not addressed. Another reason is that sexual promiscuity has become a sacred cow in our society and focusing on illegitmacy reminds people of what a truly destructive force casual sex outside of marriage is. I doubt that there is much that legislation can do to address this problem. It will be only addressed by a moral reawakening of the population as a whole, and a return to God.

  • Don, E Michael Jones would disagree with you on all your replys to Kevin J. in his book “The Slaughter Of The Cities” he documents that the destruction of the inner cities was planned by liberal social enginers to deliberately destroy Catholic neighbourhoods and in “The Revolutionary Jew” he shows that the so-called “Civil Rights” movement was created and controled by liberal New York Jews, not to help blacks gain their rights, but to use the Blacks to achieve their own goals of political aggrandizement. heck the only black guy they had on board for years was W.E.B DuBois, who ironically was a segregationist and a spporter of Planned parenthood.(Then called the American birth Control League.)

  • Stephen E. Dalton, thus far in this discussion you have manufactured an apologetic for the post-Reconstruction consolidation of white supremacy (with imaginative claims about ‘aggressive’ freed blacks) and now are acting as a conduit for E. Michael Jones’ conspiratorialist tripe. It is stupid and you should stop it (and quit complaining that others draw the conclusion that you have it in for large blocs of people).

  • Just a note of appreciation for the concerted pushback against Dalton’s lunacy. One of the odd things I notice about his rants is that just before offering a defence of racism or anti-semitism, he always claims some sort of descent from Jews or black people, as though this is supposed to defuse what he is about to say. My kudos, particularly, to Donald for steadfastly opposing Dalton’s slimey stuff.

  • “Untrue as to Chicago where the Mayor, until the beginning of this year, was a Catholic, as were most of his chief lieutenants. Of course Daley was a pro-abort which is typical of urban Catholic politicians.”

    My speculation would be that urban Catholic leaders’ shift to pro-abortion ideology was in part due to maintaining their electability in the face of the flight of conservative Catholics from the Democrats and from the cities. While other factors probably had greater impact, I think it’s safe to say that the fallout from the civil rights movement was a contributing factor to this flight.

    Are we sure Jones’ Slaughter of Cities is a totally fringe work? A somewhat prominent Jesuit priest recommended it to me a while back, before Jones went into full anti-Jewish mode. (I found Jones kinda scary even then, which is why the recommendation was so surprising and memorable.)

  • My speculation would be that urban Catholic leaders’ shift to pro-abortion ideology was in part due to maintaining their electability in the face of the flight of conservative Catholics from the Democrats and from the cities. While other factors probably had greater impact, I think it’s safe to say that the fallout from the civil rights movement was a contributing factor to this flight.

    The hollowing out of Catholic belief and practice in the last fifty years is an unhappy thing to behold. The thinking and behavior of nominally Catholic politicians is an aspect of this. That the Catholic population in metropolitan areas is distributed among the municipalities of each metropolis differently than was the case in 1947 likely has only a small effect on the sort of Catholic politician you seen in prominent offices. (In any case, inner city blacks are not promising material for the ranks of those pushing contraception or sodomy).

    Are we sure Jones’ Slaughter of Cities is a totally fringe work?

    Yes we are.

  • Kevin, the problem is that too many Catholics in this country are completely happy to vote for pro-aborts. A case in point is Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a black population of 6.6%, half the national percent of the black population. 44% of Massachusetts is Catholic. The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation I believe is pro-abort. Remember the heroes’ sendoff that pro-abort Kennedy got at his funeral Mass in Boston? Remember Father Drinan, Massachusetts pro-abort Congressman, who helped give cover for other pro-abort Democrat politicians? Remember Notre Dame giving a heroes’ reception to Obama?

    If Catholics, especially Catholic Democrats, voted for only pro-life candidates, abortion would be illegal in this country within the next two years. Sadly, where Catholics are strongest in this country in numbers, the pro-life cause tends to be weakest. Catholics running for office as pro-aborts has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement, and everything to do with their knowledge that they will not suffer for such a stance at the polls by unified opposition from their fellow Catholics.

  • While I have sometimes agreed with what Stephen has written on other subjects, when it comes to blacks and Jews, I find myself disagreeing. Sorry, Stephen, but we differ here.

    I have noticed particularly from very traditionalist Catholics a marked distaste for and sometimes almost a revulsion against other Christian denominations and Jews. I am not certain where that comes from. And where all of this stuff against blacks comes from is unfathomable.

    However, while I disagree with Stephen’s stuff on these points, I don’t think Stephen himself is slimey (and a close reading of Mark’s comment reveals that he didn’t say that, either). In fact, I see eye-to-eye with him on other points, but maybe that’s because I am unashamedly to the right of Attilla the Hun.

    😉

  • “Catholics running for office as pro-aborts has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement, and everything to do with their knowledge that they will not suffer for such a stance at the polls by unified opposition from their fellow Catholics.”

    But if unrepentent, then they WILL suffer for such a stance in the next life. Because Priests and Bishops don’t tell them that, they think they can do whatever they want.

  • Yes, King was imperfect. Me too. Yes, King was a hypocrite. Me too. All good men disfavor sin and say so, yet all are sinners. There are two roads in life: one can either try unsuccessfully to conform one’s actions to one’s conscience, or one can simply conform one’s conscience to one’s actions. Only the former are called hypocrites.

  • This:

    and in “The Revolutionary Jew” he shows that the so-called “Civil Rights” movement was created and controled by liberal New York Jews, not to help blacks gain their rights, but to use the Blacks to achieve their own goals of political aggrandizement

    Reminds me of this:

    “The Jew is using The Black as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Whitey? Just sit there? Of course not! You are going to join with us…”

    And then a 1974 Dodge Monaco comes careening into view.

    You know Jones’ intellectual self-immolation is complete when he sounds just like Henry Gibson’s character in The Blues Brothers.

  • The Blues Brothers were born in my town in their fictional setting.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001881/bio

  • Mr Price, I suggest you do some actual reading on the history of the civil rights movement and the Jewish involement and control of the same. A stupid Hollywood movie isn’t a good primnary source, especially if you are a well educated man?

  • Mr Price, I suggest you do some actual reading on the history of the civil rights movement and the Jewish involement and control of the same

    If you fancy that the NAACP, the Urban League, CORE, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Non-violent Co-ordinating Committee, the federal Supreme Court, four successive Presidents, and 3/4 of the United States Congress were all marionettes of the B’nai B’rith, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

  • Art, I suggest you do a little reading yourself, instead of trusting the Lamestream media.

  • Stephen, you are embarrassing yourself. Don’t say you were not told.

  • Mike, you and the others commentators here are the ones who are embarassing yourselves. You, McCleary, and the others refuse to do any honest research about the true origins of the so-called civil rights movement, you just parrot the old liberal bull hockey that it was a great advance for mankind. As I have already pointed out, it was socialistic, liberal, and communistic nonsense that did more to hurt the blacks than to help them. E Michael Jones has totally documented the involvement and control of Jews, liberal Catholics, secular liberals, socialists, and communists of the civil rights movement in his book “The Revoltionary Jew”. He has also written an article “The End of Dialogue” available at http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Unity.htm that has a quote from Benjamin Ginsberg’s “Fatal Embrace” about about the true origins and motives of the civil rights movement. I do hope you’re able to screw up the courage to click on that link and read the article. You might discover you were wrong, along with everyone else, with the noble exceptions of Kevin J, Dan, and Paul, who disagreed with me, but defended my charater from Mark Shea’s libel and slander.

  • Well Stephen I am afraid it is time for a parting of the ways. You are banned from this site. Your obvious hatred of Blacks and Jews is something that I simply will not tolerate on this blog. Your efforts to defend your hate are simply rubbish and I will not suppply a forum for you to continue to do so.

  • “the problem is that too many Catholics in this country are completely happy to vote for pro-aborts. A case in point is Massachusetts”

    Recently I stumbled across a blog post, written a few years ago, speculating (or perhaps more to the point, fantasizing) about what it would be like if a future/fictional pope were to place the ENTIRE Commonwealth of Massachusetts under an interdict like popes used to do when they wanted to send a strong message to the rulers or people of a particular locality:

    http://curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2006/07/massachusetts-interdict.html

    Although I understand the Curmudgeon’s frustration with blatantly pro-abort and pro-gay-marriage public officials who get away with presenting themselves as devout Catholics, still, the notion that the people of an entire state — including those who oppose the policy in question but are always outnumbered and outvoted by those who favor it — deserve to be deprived of the Sacraments as a result is a bit over the top, to say the least. I assume it was meant as exaggeration to make a point, similar to Christ’s talk about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin.

  • Agreed Elaine, although I wonder what the impact would have been if Ted Kennedy had been excommunicated rather than warmly embraced by the Church in Massachusetts?

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/09/04/cardinal-omalley-apologia-pro-sua-teddy/

  • Your obvious hatred of Blacks and Jews

    I suppose it is foolish of me to try to get inside someone’s else’s head, but I would wager it is not a hatred of anyone but an enjoyment of having the inside dope (and exceedingly poor judgment about what counts as a reliable source).

    I will not suppply a forum for you to continue to do so.

    If the point of departure is John Birch Society literature (or anything similarly structured) discussions are bound to be tedious and unprofitable to all concerned. The vaudeville cane is a good idea.

  • Pingback: Not even thinly veiled racialists | Catholic and Enjoying It!

Make Them Share The Wealth With Me

Tuesday, October 18, AD 2011

Yesterday’s gospel reading struck me in relation to the protests which have been continuing to occupy their at once earnest and farcical place on our front pages.

Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.”

He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”

Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed,
for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Make Them Share The Wealth With Me

  • These protests have me thoroughly confused (not that the bar is very high for that). Some of the points certain protesters make do have some appeal – it is hard not to be sympathetic to those decrying the use of bailout money for huge bonuses to the boneheads who caused the crisis. On the other hand, they seem to be going way overboard in their speech, actions and demands. Seems like a great opportunity for decent reform wasted.

  • The legitimate aspect of the protests is that there should have been no bailout at all of anyone. The usual procedures to deal with failing banks should have been followed in 2008. What makes the protests completely farcial however, other than their clownish aspects, is that most of the protestors have no objection to bailouts so long as the rest of the “99%” get bailed out from all their debts. That, and free food and drink for life served by fairies from carts pulled by unicorns no doubt.

  • Charity cannot be forced or enforced which is what happens when things are taken from one and given to another. Charity is volutary, which is the main component missed by the social justice types. They think that true charity is practiced when they support taxing one group to redistribute to another group. This is not the “storing up of treasures that matter” but only a “feel-good” exercise. They would be better off giving thier own possessions volutarily than those of another involuntarily.

  • The usual procedures to deal with failing banks should have been followed in 2008.

    The problem was that the procedures were designed for insolvent deposits-and-loans institutions. Wachovia and Washington Mutual were of this nature and the usual procedures were followed. The troubled institutions included an insurance company, two secondary mortgage brokers, three securities firms, a universal bank with most of its deposits domiciled abroad and heavy involvement in securities markets, and another universal bank brought low by government sponsored marriages with two other troubled institutions. There were not standard procedures for containing and resolving a perfect storm of trouble with institutions of this nature. (While we are at it, what they generally got was bridge lending and loan guarantees. Three or four of these were bailed out in the sense that they got a mess of capital injected into them that has not been paid back).

  • “The troubled institutions included an insurance company, two secondary mortgage brokers, three securities firms, a universal bank with most of its deposits domiciled abroad and heavy involvement in securities markets, and another universal bank brought low by government sponsored marriages with two other troubled institutions. There were not standard procedures for containing and resolving a perfect storm of trouble with institutions of this nature.”

    And in my opinion Art they should have been allowed to fail. That would have unleashed a financial crisis globally no doubt, but I believe that the medicine we took with the bailouts has merely stretched out a boom and bust cycle into what we have had now ever since, an unending recession or mini-depression. The policies of course of the Obama administration have been completely counter-productive, but the great bailout of 2008 set the mold for what followed.

  • I would also add, in light of yesterday’s first reading, is the call to Faith and holiness. A holiness which ultimately comes not through any material good or effort on our part, but through the grace of God. Those who put their Faith in material goods or social efforts without this end of Faith holiness will ultimately fail.

  • depending on the food and drink, I might be on board.

  • Suddenly redistribution looks a little different when you are the one having things redistributed without your consent.

    “Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops — and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.
    “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.”

  • “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.”

    I am shocked, shocked!!!!

  • “Pricey cameras, phones and laptops.” Too funny.

  • I have little doubt that this entire thing has been organized and funded by some bunch of groups aligned with George Soros. Some of these people are the same who show up at the G-20 meetings and riot and destroy everything in sight.

    When that bunch came to Pittsburgh (the G-20 protesters) the Pittsburgh Police put up with NOTHING from them.

  • And in my opinion Art they should have been allowed to fail. That would have unleashed a financial crisis globally no doubt, but I believe that the medicine we took with the bailouts has merely stretched out a boom and bust cycle into what we have had now ever since, an unending recession or mini-depression. The policies of course of the Obama administration have been completely counter-productive, but the great bailout of 2008 set the mold for what followed.

    That has been attempted before, with no success, most notably during the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1932. What you call “the usual procedures” were a consequence of the failure of the previous set of “usual procedures” (conventional bankruptcy law). There is nothing wrong with the current set of ‘usual procedures’, it is just that they need to be elaborated upon to take account of the evolution of the financial sector in the last 30 years. Congress had not done that and the Treasury and the Federal Reserve had to improvise. Neither had the sort of institutional memory the International Monetary Fund has in addressing and containing financial crises and there was also some sort of tenth planet governing the behavior of Henry Paulson and his camarilla. I cannot figure why you would attribute this year’s economic troubles to the TARP program, however messy that program was in its conception or implementation. Bank of America is the only notable TARP recipient currently running a deficit.

  • “That has been attempted before, with no success, most notably during the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1932.”

    Actually Art Hoover was quite the interventionist in the economy, popular myth to the contrary. Boom and bust had been a constant cycle in American history prior to the Great Depression. I tend to believe that government policies made a recession into the Great Depression. I think Amity Schlaes has made a convincing case on that score. In regard to the Bailout of 2008 it promulgated the illusion that it was necessary to spend vast sums of public money to rescue the economy. I simply do not believe it. Far better to simply let enterprises rise and fall without government intervention, no matter the current pain from hard economic times.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EXTRA: OCCUPY WALL STREET | ThePulp.it
  • Actually Art Hoover was quite the interventionist in the economy, popular myth to the contrary

    He was not, and his interventions account for little of the economic trouble the country experienced during those years.

    Mr. Hoover did attempt to persuade the chieftains of commercial corporations not to lower nominal wages. The behavior of employers with regard to wages and cuts in the workforce did differ from the previous contraction in 1920-22, but it is difficult to imagine that attempts at suasion of this sort had any more effect on the behavior of economic actors than did Mr. Carter’s voluntary wage and price guidelines.

    Mr. Hoover also put his signature on the Smoot-Hawley tariff. This was not a salutary measure. One should recall, however, that there was in the last quarter of 2008 and the 1st quarter of 2009 an implosion in world trade absent any contrivances such as that, which is to say that the similar implosion which took place after 1929 one might surmise had other drivers. In any case, foreign trade was a small part of the American economy in 1929; about 95% of our production was generated for the domestic market, so the dead weight loss from constraints on trade would have been only a small fraction of the 27% decline in output you saw between the summer of 1929 and the spring of 1933. The injuries of Smoot-Hawley would have been borne by those dependent on exports to the United States (i.e. Canada).

    There was a 45% increase in real federal expenditure between the fiscal year concluding in 1929 and that concluding in 1933. Given the implosion in production, that amounted to a doubling of the share of domestic product accounted for by federal expenditure. The thing was, federal expenditure in 1928/29 accounted for only 1.7% of gross domestic product. The economic effects from diverting factors of production would have been notably less than those attending the ramping up of military expenditure in 1940/41, just prior to World War II. The tax increases enacted in 1932 to contain the federal deficit likely injured aggregate demand further. They do not account for much of the observed decline in production, however. The monotonic decline in production finally came to an end in the summer of 1932. Nearly all the damage to the economy had been done prior to when the tax increase went into effect.

    There were three waves of bank failures which erupted between November 1930 and March of 1933. The response was standard: the supervisory authority (the Comptroller of the Currency or the state banking supervisor) would close the bank and the matter would be referred to bankruptcy courts. During the last wave (in late 1932 and early 1933), state governments also attempted banking holidays.

    Sir Alan Walters has identified the most salient policy error of the Hoover Administration: the retention of the gold standard. The British economic recovery began almost immediately upon its abandonment in September 1931, whereas the American economy continued to decline for another 18 months. The lapse of time between May of 1931 and July of 1932 was just about the most wretched in our economic history. Retention of the existing currency regime does not count as an ‘interventionist’ policy.

  • Art, I stand by my contention that Hoover was highly interventionist. There was nothing that FDR did, albeit Hoover criticized the New Deal strenuously and correctly, that Hoover was not doing in embryo, as some New Dealers candidly admitted at the time.

    http://walter-coffey.suite101.com/president-hoover-worsens-the-great-depression-a150260

    http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter11.asp

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp122.pdf

    Agreed as to Smoot-Hawley.

  • “In regard to the Bailout of 2008 it promulgated the illusion that it was necessary to spend vast sums of public money to rescue the economy. I simply do not believe it.”

    The Great Depression was in a very different monetary regime then we currently have so rehashing arguments as to who(Hoover and FDR) caused the depression is worthless when debating the policies for the current recession. I think it behooves anyone discussing economics to understand how the current monetary system works.

    http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

  • Art, I stand by my contention that Hoover was highly interventionist

    Compared to whom, with what tools, and on what scale? Walter Coffey gives almost no thought to the size or the timing of the various policy measures to which he refers. With regard to the Federal Farm Board, I would assume that the manipulation of commodity prices by public agencies induces deadweight loss (though I would guess that efficiency losses would be considerably less than those following upon price controls). The thing was, you had an average flow of $26 bn dollars in nominal farm production every year as against a revolving fund with a stock of $0.5 bn. Contextually, it could not be that important. With regard to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, he is arguing a counter-factual: that the economy would have recovered more rapidly without it. He cannot argue that the Corporation is responsible for the economic contraction. The economy had been contracting for two and a half years before it had ever lent one dollar to an ailing enterprise and the economy was growing rapidly for six of the first nine years it was in operation.

    I re Amity Shlaes: you need to consult students of the period who put their focus on the most salient information. If you can find a data table or a graph in that book, you are a better sleuth than I am. Look at her bibliography. She manifests scant interests in the literature of economics or economic history. Fewer than five percent of her references are to scholarly treatments in these disciplines. She read a mountain of secondary literature on the the period (general histories, biographies, memoirs, &c.), but very little of what she needed to read to make the argument she is attempting to make.

  • “Compared to whom, with what tools, and on what scale?”

    Compared to every American president before him. Hoover was the precursor of Roosevelt and not the defender of laissez- faire he is painted to be. Ironically FDR when he campaigned against Hoover called for a balanced budget and accused Hoover of wasting money on public works programs. From the Democrat platform of 1932:

    “The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies, and reforms herein advocated, and to eradicate the policies, methods, and practices herein condemned. We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government. And we call upon the Democratic Party in the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.

    We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate executive estimates within revenues, raised by a system of taxation levied on the principle of ability to pay.”

    Then FDR won the election and followed in Hoover’s footsteps.

  • He did no such thing. The following was done:

    1. A bank holiday was declared and a general examination of banks by the Comptroller of the Currency commenced.

    2. The dollar was devalued and the convertibility of the dollar into gold suspended; a rapid increase in the money supply was begun.

    3. Legislation providing for a revised financial architecture was enacted, which included the erection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Home Owners Loan Corporation.

    All of these were new departures in policy and the tonic effect was almost immediate, as in within weeks.

    —-

    I should note in passing w/ regard to the acts of ‘every American president before him’ that the Depression was a global phenomenon. It was not notably severe in some locales (e.g. the Balkans, Ireland), but rapid and severe economic contractions were fairly pervasinve. It would be rather odd to attribute all of this to policy innovations by Mr. Hoover (whose monetary policies were not innovative).

  • No he continued on with the same interventions in the economy that had been pioneered by Hoover.

    In regard to banks, Hoover had Congress pass the Federal Loan Bank Act of 1932:

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1530.html

    FDR was following in his footsteps.

    In regard to the gold standard FDR did diverge from Hoover’s policy, one of the very few divergences in anything except magnitude in regard to their economic policies.

  • The act you make reference to was passed in July of 1932. Again, the economic contraction began in July of 1929. There was a period of stasis running from December 1929 to April 1930 and around February and March of 1931. Otherwise the economic decline was monotonic and (after October 1929) fairly rapid. It was in the summer of 1932 that production levels stabilized for a time and showed some mild improvement. The economy began to contract again in the late fall coincident with a mass of bank failures. Two of the Hoover Administration’s most salient interventions (the Federal Reserve attempting open market operations and the advent of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation) post-dated the bulk of the decline and immediately preceded the stabilization of production levels. I assume there is an economist who would argue that the stabilization would have occurred anyway and that the policy measures co-incident with it were of no account. That is not an argument which can be readily evaluated in this forum (and Amity Shlaes does not have the chops for that sort of thing either).

  • Well, that is indeed the headline of the Telegraph based on the interpretation of the famously astute Tom Reese, S.J. I rest my case.

  • (For background: Reese was removed from his post as editor of the Jesuit magazine America, reportedly at the request of the Vatican, because he was considered a little too crazy to be a good fit even for that sometimes notorious publication.)

  • Mr. Green, it is generally best not to believe anything that the main stream media says about the Catholic Church if it either supports their views or makes the Church look bad from their point of view.
    That goes double for an English source– even these days, the UK has a lot of folks who have no blessed clue and will pass on things they “know” that simply ain’t so.

    If you’re interested, American Papist has a break-down of the situation.
    Including, sadly, that there is at least one priest helping in the misunderstanding of this letter.
    (If you like Catholic blogs, you probably ran across this guy a while ago– he had a banner with that Polish cardinal doing the “YOU GO, DAWG!” type arm/hand signals. Quirky, yet awesome.)

  • Father Reese was the subject of my first post in my “Jesuitical” series.

    http://amcatholic.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/jesuitical/

  • Heh. Off topic, but it was kind of entertaining reading the troll comments. Can’t say I miss them though.

  • Didn’t say I believed it, just providing a link that is open to interpretation. I, of course, believe no one, least of all myself.

  • Wow, you went one up on TREEBEARD? That is hard core. *grin*

Mainstream Media Reality

Tuesday, October 18, AD 2011

Klavan on the Culture I sometimes wonder what the country would be like if we had a professional mainstream media, instead of the hacks and shills who currently infest it.  Ah, but that is in some alternate universe.  In the one we inhabit the Newspaper Guild, the union of many newspaper reporters, has endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement, and journalists and pundits are organizing to help the Occupy Wall Street Movement get its  message out:

Big Journalism has learned that the Occupy Washington DC movement is working with well-known media members to craft its demands and messaging while these media members report on the movement. Someone has made the emails from the Occupy Wall Street email distro public and searchable. The names in the list are a veritable who’s who in media.

Journolist 2.0 includes well known names such as MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi who both are actively participating; involvement from other listers such as Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald plus well-known radicals like Noam Chomsky, remains unclear. The list also includes a number of radical organizers, such as Kevin Zeese.

 

Of course we can all recall the neutral, just the facts, coverage of the Tea Party movement:

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Mainstream Media Reality

  • “I sometimes wonder what the country would be like if we had a professional mainstream media, instead of the hacks and shills who currently infest it. Ah, but that is in some alternate universe”

    You might want to try looking for them at small- and medium-size community newspapers and radio stations, and on certain community-oriented blogs, some of which do a better job of reporting the news than the local legacy media does despite not getting paid for what they do and having to fit it around a day job and family obligations.

  • Elaine is right. In my long legal career I have encountered many situations that were newsworthy and therefore reported on. In each case, the reports were either seriously inaccurate or horribly selectively biased, or both, with one exception. Many years ago I represented an insurance company before the Cobb County board on Commissioners on a tax dispute. The hearing did not go well — I was young and naive enough to think that the Board would be interested in the law or facts. The next morning I read story about the hearing in the Marietta Daily Journal. It was a first rate summary of the hearing. No opinion and no mistakes — just straightforward summaries of the arguments presented, questions asked and answered, and conclusion. All dry and very matter of fact. I was impressed and mentioned it to one of my colleagues, who quipped, “That young man has no future in journalism.”

  • “You might want to try looking for them at small- and medium-size community newspapers and radio stations, and on certain community-oriented blogs, some of which do a better job of reporting the news than the local legacy media does despite not getting paid for what they do and having to fit it around a day job and family obligations.”

    Quite right Elaine. I represent the local paper in town, named, appropriately enough, The Paper, and I have generally found them to do a top notch job. I was involved in a case almost a decade ago which received some national coverage, and invariably the smaller the newspaper the better the job they did of getting the facts straight.

Our Intellectual Elites: Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi

Monday, October 17, AD 2011

Susan Sarandon comes out at a film festival and calls our German Shepherd a Nazi.

Words can’t describe what I want so say, so I’ll just print the excerpt from The Hollywood Reporter:

Sarandon was interviewed by Bob Balaban at the Bay Street Theatre in Sag Harbor on Saturday. She said she sent the pope a copy of the anti death penalty book, Dead Man Walking, authored by Sister Helen Prejean. Sarandon starred in the 1995 big-screen adaptation.

“The last one,” she said, “not this Nazi one we have now.”

Tofu anyone, while trying to digest the latest from Hollywood?

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Our Intellectual Elites: Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi

  • What a moron.

  • Mike, I was just contacted by the Moron Anti-Defamation Coalition. They apparently take extreme umbrage at being compared to Susan Sarandon.

  • Gentlemen,

    She was not cc’d on the memo by the DNC regarding push for civility and stopping violence following the Gilford shooting tragedy. I am sure they will be sending her one in the near future.

  • Susan Sarandon, ‘nough said.

  • What do you expect from Susan Saran-wrap?

    Semper Fi!

  • Fair enough, Don. I withdraw my remark and apologize to morons everywhere.

  • Our Intellectual Elites

    Susan Sarandon ? BWAHAHAHAHAH.

    Seriously? Susan Sarandon – now you’re really jagging me – right? 🙂

    Another Hollywood air head has a brain fart and Our wonderful Lame Stream Media gush over it.

  • Thank you Mike. The League of Blithering Idiots sent me an e-mail and they are taking a poll of their membership to determine if they will extend honorary membership to Ms. Sarandon.

  • Isn’t that kinda like not Politically Correct, kinda like a profiling no-no, kinda like bullying, kinda schizo on the life concept, kinda not really high-minded, kinda devoid of the milk of human kindness, kinda like an Archie Bunker gone totally mean type mentality?

  • Susan Saradon attended catholic schools her whole life and graduated from The Catholic University of America.

    “If you want your children to fight for their faith, send them to public school. If you want them to lose their faith, send them to Catholic school.”
    -the wonderful Bishop Fulton Sheen

  • More deep theological insights from Ms. Sarandon:

    “In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Sarandon and Tim Robbins campaigned for John Edwards in the New Hampshire communities of Hampton, Bedford and Dover. When asked at We Vote ’08 Kickoff Party “What would Jesus do this primary season”, Sarandon said, “I think Jesus would be very supportive of John Edwards.”

    I guess I missed the section of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said “Blessed are the ambulance chasers with expensive haircuts for they will find favor with the Hollywood Glitterati!” but I am sure it is in there somewhere.

  • Supposedly Kipling was a nazi sympathizer because he had a reverse swastika attached to some of his book covers…as were members of this 1900’s Native America basketball team:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Native_American_basketball_team_crop.jpg

  • The swastika was a good luck symbol before it got appropriated by the Nazis.

    I was pleased to see Abe Foxman of the ADL also criticizing Ms. Sarandon’s remarks – props.

  • Poor parrot. Polly is a cracker. Polly is a cracker.

  • If anyone, Catholic or non Catholic, were to read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict they would know what a very kind, holy, devout Christian gentleman he is. What a privilege it is to have him as Pope, in these times when truth and faith are being utterly rejected. Interesting to note Pope Benedict recently asked for a stay of execution for an African American man in the United States who swore he was innocent. As usual, no one paid attention to the Holy Father. I wish those who judge him would read a bit about him first.

  • As a German-American with a distinctivly German given name and surname, I recognize that calling any German a Nazi is a too common but still bigoted slur. She degrades herself with such language.

    Of course, it should be remembered that Joseph Ratzinger was very much a liberal until his change of heart in the early 1970s. During the Right Wing dicatorship, the Ratzingers stood with the German Left and the Catholic Left in being very much opposed to Nazism. Blessed Nikolas Gross, pray for us.

William Henry Bissell-First Catholic Governor of Illinois

Monday, October 17, AD 2011

Part of my ongoing series on the governors of Illinois down to the end of Reconstruction at the blog Almost Chosen People that I run with Paul Zummo.  William Henry Bissell, the eleventh governor of Illinois, was the first Catholic governor.  Bissell was born on April 25, 1811 near the town of Painted Post in New York.  Studying medicine, he opened a practice in Monroe County in Illinois.  Eventually at the age of 30 he shifted careers from medicine to the law.  In 1840 he was elected to the state legislature as a Democrat.  Passing the bar he was appointed by the legislature as prosecuting attorney for the judicial circuit in which he lived.

During the Mexican War he was elected as Colonel of the Second Illinois infantry regiment and commanded that unit at the battle of Buena Vista.  He earned the praise of General Zachary Taylor that day: “Colonel Bissell, the only surviving colonel of the three (Illinois) regiments, merits notice for his coolness and bravery on this occasion (Buena Vista).”

After the War he was elected as a Democrat to Congress.  He was an ardent foe of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and became identified with the new Republican party.  In 1850 he almost fought a duel with Jefferson Davis.  Bissell had defended the courage of Northern troops who fought at Buena Vista and accused Southerners of attempting to hog the glory of that day.  Davis, who had commanded the Mississippi Rifles at Buena Vista, thereupon challenged him to a duel.  Bissell, who never lacked courage, accepted and designated the weapons for the duel as army muskets loaded with balls and buckshot.  President Taylor, the former father-in-law of Davis threatened Davis with arrest, and a peaceful resolution was reached between Bissell and Davis.

Continue reading...

One Response to William Henry Bissell-First Catholic Governor of Illinois

The Manifesto of Edward T. Hall III-Trust Fund Recipient

Sunday, October 16, AD 2011

18 Responses to The Manifesto of Edward T. Hall III-Trust Fund Recipient

  • That’s a woman, right?

  • As a retired working man, I find the antics of the trust fund brats to be quite amusing. These beknighted morons probably never had any actual contact with any member of the working class in their lives, yet they presume the right to protest in my behalf. I say to them: take a bath, use a toliet, not a police car to crap on, get a life, and get a real job to relieve my tax burden, since your damm trust fund consist of tax-free bonds!

  • What my sainted father, who ran the steel shears at a truck body plant and who had little use for the “idiot rich” (his phrase), would have said about this fellow Stephen would probably have removed an inch of the steel he used to cut! I recall his comments about the hippies as one of the cherished memories of my childhood!

  • It’s the drugs, stupid.

    This fellow appears to have an institutional address (title: ‘research associate’) in a subunit of Columbia University. It is not immediately clear if he draws a salary, or is stipended from grant funds, or is just allowed office space, a library card, and computer time. If his grandfather’s gift amounted to $100,000 in assets, that would provide him w/ around $3,000 in income, which will pay his grocery bills, more or less. The article contends he is making rent by drawing down his savings. I do not think he will be out of the labor force for very much longer unless he is awarded a fellowship by Columbia or his mother and father elect to establish a pipeline to him (which they sound the type to do).

    Look, he appears to have been sadly miseducated by circumstances and dinner-table conversation. He has made a compleat ass of himself in a manner that will likely remain accessible when he is an old man. Can we please look away now?

  • “Poetry of science” is about extracting sunbeams from cucumbers, right?

  • That is one ugly girl.

    I often visit econ prof weblogs and am continually amazed at the “other-worldly” inanity. This imbecile evinces a bright future as a clueless professor.

    That is one of the hundreds of tantrums being thrown downtown. One of tens of millions of brain farts that empowered the Obama/Ayres/Holder wrecking regime.

    Bumper sticker that caused a Brooklyn man to be assaulted (he wielded an ax and chased the heroes of the revolution down the street) – “Need a job? Find a job.”

    In other news you won’t see on the state run media: Today, Sharpton, et al covered themselves in oratorical glories at the MLK Memorial “christening.”

  • Micha,

    I think that is about employing sunbeams, unicorn farts and zephyrs to generate energy for 310,000,000 people enduring dire destitution.

  • Jay you took the words right out of mouth!

  • Edward T. Hall III = tool

  • A song comes to mind –

    ” Get a Haircut, and get a real job.”

  • Don, these “lovers of the working class” can wax eloquent about our oppression, as long as we agree with them. However when guys like me express skepticism of their methods and goals, we’re told that we have false consciousness and need to be sent to a re-education camp. Where’s the love, Don? ROTFL!

  • Emotion research as in ranging from a ‘sledge hammer to like a little tiny hammer’?
    Social psychology or behavioral economics as in screaming for unspecified help?
    Environmental economics as in cramped camping and creation of micro-landfills?
    Poetry of science – discovering truth and beauty in the movement, and also that of the above to more mountainous ecologic landfills while looking up at bldgs., and not verifying the identity or seat of the ‘poets’ who are dictating the epic of villains and heroes. The scientific method at work, by whom?

  • Someone should create the legal papers needed for Eddie to sign over his trust fund to “The People”, then present it to him while tv cameras roll. Then step back and watch his head explode.

  • Emerson, I don’t want Eddie’s head to explode. It’s bad enough he and his buds crap on cop cars! We don’t need the filth in his noggin getting on everything!

  • When I saw the title of this post — I kid you not — the first thing that came to mind was that it was a link to a parody by Iowahawk, introducing a young nephew or cousin of T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII.

  • Ha! Good connection Elaine. Iowahawk needs to write a column about Van Voorhees VII attempting to make common cause with Occupy Wall Street while having his Butler pitch his tent. Priceless!

  • Just as priceless- the revelation that that there is a theft problem among the protesters in NYC. One young leftist complained about her $5,000 (?) laptop being stolen. Silly woman! It wasn’t “stolen” – only conservatives with a absurd regard for property rights think in terms of theft. No, the computer was liberated! After all, it’s not fair for some people to own $5,000 laptops (was it purchased at Tiffany’s?) when other oppressed souls (like me, for instance) have to make due with our old PC’s.

  • Come the revolution Donna we will all have $5,000 laptops!

The Intriguing Saint Thomas More

Sunday, October 16, AD 2011

The figure of Saint Thomas More intrigues Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and has ever since his death.  Why is that?

1.  A Man for All Seasons-Saint Thomas More was all of these things:  a saint, a politician, historian, a lawyer, a judge, one of the leading intellectuals of his day, a witty jokester, a good family man, Chancellor of England, one of the most gifted writers of Latin or English, political theorist, inventor of a literary genre (utopias), dissident, martyr.  He crammed many lives into one life, and we continue to marvel at this.

2.  Nice guy-So many great figures in history are completely unapproachable,  evil or downright weird.  More on the other hand is the type of boon companion we would wish for, and a dinner guest to be dreamed of.

3.   Drama-More’s life, and his death, are full of endless drama, and would have made a great Shakespeare play.  Shakespeare may actually have had a hand in the play Thomas More, which, mirabile dictu considering it was written under Bad Queen Bess, treats Saint Thomas More with great respect.

4.    Contrast-King Henry VIII has come down in English history as a crowned monster, which is unusual since he initiated the Reformation in England which ultimately triumphed.  As a result of the negative attitude towards Henry, his victims have been generally treated generously by English historians and chief among these is Saint Thomas More.  Here are the words of Sir Winston Churchill on More:

“The resistance of More and Fisher to the royal supremacy in Church government was a heroic stand.  They realised the defects of the existing Catholic system, but they hated and feared the aggressive nationalism which was destroying the unity of Christendom.  They saw that the break with Rome carried with it the risk of a despotism freed from every fetter.  More stood forth as the defender of all that was finest in the medieval outlook.  He represents to history its universality, its belief in spiritual values, and its instinctive sense of otherworldliness.  Henry VIII with cruel axe decapitated not only a wise and gifted counselor, but a system which, though it had failed to live up to its ideals in practice, had for long furnished mankind with its brightest dreams.”

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Intriguing Saint Thomas More

Sam Grant, the Beatles and the Internet

Saturday, October 15, AD 2011

I feel that we are on the eve of a new era, when there is to be great harmony between the Federal and Confederate. I cannot stay to be a living witness to the correctness of this prophecy; but I feel it within me that it is to be so. The universally kind feeling expressed for me at a time when it was supposed that each day would prove my last, seemed to me the beginning of the answer to “Let us have peace.”  

Ulysses S. Grant, written just before his death

 

Something for the weekend.  Quotations from Ulysses S. Grant to the Beatles song  In My Life.  A follow up to my post on Robert E. Lee, the Beatles and the Internet.  Another demonstration of what a wild and wacky place the internet truly is!

 

Few men in American history have gone from complete obscurity to being a  central figure in the life of the nation faster than Ulysses Simpson Grant.  Known as Sam Grant by his West Point friends, his first two initials making Sam an inevitable nickname, Grant had an unerring ability to fail at everything he put his hand to, except for war, his marriage and his last gallant race against the Grim Reaper, as he was dying of cancer, to finish his memoirs and provide financially for his wife and children.  Most great figures in our history have known success more than failure.  Not so Sam Grant.  He would encounter humiliating defeats throughout his life, from beginning to end.

 

At the beginning of the Civil War, he was a clerk, barely able to support his family.  Seemingly a dull plodder, but possessed of iron determination and an uncanny ability to never let the trees obscure the forest;  happily married and a firm believer in God, but subject to bouts of depression when he would grasp for the bottle;  the shabby little man who, incredibly, ended up winning the greatest war in American history.

 

His men didn’t hold him in awe as Lee’s men did Lee;  Grant was far too common and prosaic a figure for that.  However, they did respect him, as this section of Stephen Vincent Benet’s epic poem on the Civil War, John Brown’s Body, indicates:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Sam Grant, the Beatles and the Internet

  • I have never made the time to look at them extensively or, even, carefully, but Grant’s memoirs have reputed, among critics and college academics (stuck with teaching ill-prepared and indifferent undergraduates to distinguish between “its” and “it’s” and “there” and “their” (and, even, “they’re” and imparting the trick of assembling complete sentences into a coherent paragraph) to be if not the pinnacle of, then among the very finest prose writing in American letters.
    So–he was good at two things.

  • True. Grant was a fine writer. Some people have accused Mark Twain, a former Confederate and friend of Grant, of ghost writing the memoirs but that is untrue. Twain gave Grant some help in getting the publishing deal for his memoirs, but that is all. Grant’s memoirs read like his written orders during the War: Crisp, direct and easy to understand.

18 Responses to Fish Friday

  • What a totally cool site – recipes for living, recipes for eating 🙂

    well done Foxfier.

    But I’ve no problems with fish returning on Friday. My older son has just purchased a 25 ft. power boat, and has told me that he’ll be going fishing at least once a week over the summer, and he wants me along – yum yum all that beautiful fresh fish.

    Only one little snag – a 50,000 ton container ship just last week ran itself up on a reef about 7 mile offshore, and its been spilling oil all over our beautiful beaches, and a couple of outlying islands that are havens for fishermen, (and women 😉 ) divers and spearfisherman, especially during the summer months. The newsmedia, as usual have gone into “extreme exageration” mode, and it is now “the worst marine and ecological disaster in NZ’s history.”

    What a crock. I looked at the beaches yesterday, and all the oil is cleared away by teams after each high tide. The winds have gone Westerly, so any remaining oil is being blown out to sea, where it will dissipate and be tidied up by marine bacteria. The damaged wildlfe birds, seals etc. – though sadly some have died – in 6 months nature will replenish all. Our fishing will now take place to the North of our harbour, rather than on Astrolabe Reef where the ship ‘Rena’ is – slowing breaking up with the pounding NE swell, and losing 20 – 30 containers overboard each day.

    So how are you guys reacting to this post? Bet you never thought you’d get a comment like this, Foxie 🙂

  • Pingback: Fish Friday « Truth Before Dishonor
  • Try the world’s easiest beans and rice, courtesy of Lent and Easter in the Christian Kitchen by Laurie Gill/Teresa Zepeda.
    In a 13×9 glass casserole dump the following: 3 cans beans (black, kidney, pinto, mix+match), 1 can or bag of corn, 1 1/2 cups UNCOOKED rice, 1/4 tsp cumin, 1/4 tsp oregano, and 4 cups liquid that the recipe says should be half V-8 juice and half picante sauce. But I have used regular tomato juice and salsa. You might even substitute water for some of this if you want things less spicy. Stir it around, cover tight with foil, and bake at 374 for an hour. Remove foil and cover with shredded cheese. Serve after cheese melts.

  • *laughs* Indeed, Don!

    Congratulations on the new source of fish, and I’m glad the problem isn’t nearly as bad as they say!

    Daria– ooh, that sounds rather good, and it could be used as burrito filling.

  • I usually feel guilty on Fridays because they’re my best eating days. My local lunchtime restaurant has salmon, vegetable lo mein, tilapia, stir-fry vegetables, and a decent salad bar with tuna salad.

  • Saute about 6 cloves of garlic and a teaspoon of crushed red pepper flakes in olive oil for about 30 seconds. Add 10 cups of spinach and saute until wilted. Add a pound of cooked penne and a half pound shredded smoked gouda cheese. Take off heat and stir until mixed well. Thin with some of the pasta water if too thick. Serves 8 and is awesome.

  • Sushi and miso soup
    McDonald’s 2 for $3 Fillet-o-Fish
    Fish and chips
    Subway’s veggie sub
    Burritos
    Fish tacos
    Pizza
    Tuna fish sandwich
    Egg salad sandwich
    Falafel
    Pretty much any rice dish can be made meatless. E.g., fried rice, paella, curry rice, bibimbap, omurice.
    Pretty much any pasta dish can be made meatless. E.g., baked ziti, ramen, pad thai.
    Lots of soups and stews can be made meatless. E.g., bouillabaisse, minestrone.

    Looking at that list, it doesn’t look that hard to go meatless everyday.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “Bake until Bubbly” by Clifford A. Wright has the best ever tuna casserole recipe(in the noodle chapter, I think) and also a whole seafood section. Everything is from scratch. A little extra work, but well worth it.
    Also pizza (like RR mentioned) is a great meatless dish. We have a Friday tradition of eating pizza for dinner while we watch an action/adventure TV show.
    Go to your library and look for magazine’s with recipes or for vegetarian cookbooks. You can land some really great ones that way.

  • My seven year old calls Lent “fried fish season.”

    The problem with Lent in our house is that my wife is allergic to shellfish and hates all other fish. Only during Lent does she relent… Which means Lent is, for me, my son, and my eldest daughter, a blessed season because it is “fried fish season.”

    I suspect that I could convert my wife to fish if I could make a dish with olive oil, garlic, and pasta (three of her favorite things) if it was sufficiently mild that she’d eat it without immediately knowing it is fish.

    Got a dish for that?

  • Deep fry fish sticks in olive oil, slice into creamy garlic sauce and serve on pasta? Maybe some broccoli in the sauce as well. I can’t think of any other way to keep the fish intact!

    If you don’t mind the fish breaking apart, maybe cod fried in olive oil and flaked into a garlic sauce?

  • I bake homemade mac & cheese. It is really good and the kids love it.
    Also, I make a spinach lasagne that is really good with parmesan. If you want me to post recipes, I will, if interested.

  • Asian fishcake doesn’t even taste like fish. It makes a good stir fry. It might work as a substitute for meatballs in pasta.
    Imitation crab meat is made from fish. It can be used in salads or maki rolls. It breaks apart very easily so you can’t really do any cooking with it.

  • My wife makes an excellent mac & cheese but I’m interested in the spinach lasagne if your of a mind to post it.

  • My son and I had the fish sticks and pasta with creamy garlic and parmesan sauce for dinner. It was delicious! I’d give it four of five stars. I don’t think it will work for easing my wife over to fish though. The taste and smell are unmistakably fish. I’ll definately add it to the lenten menu though.

  • If you visit a website called “Monastery Greetings” (just Google it) you can find a number of meat-free and very good cookbooks, whose purchase will support a monastery somewhere in the US – along with lots of other goodies, totally inappropriate for Lent, but hey – Christmas is coming, too.

  • Thanks. Quick question about the “inappropriate for Lent” issue, is it true that we can set aside our sacrifices on Sunday?

  • G-Veg, yes. Sunday is a day of celebration so the 40 days of Lent exclude Sundays (Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday is 46 days if you include Sundays).

Bishop Finn Indicted

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

 

Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn and the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph have been indicted on failure to report child abuse charges.  The charges are misdemeanors.  Here is the statement of the Kansas City-Saint Joseph Diocese regarding the indictments.  Go here for the details.  A few observations:

1.  The charges stem from child pornography found on a priest’s, Shawn Ratigan’s, computer in December 2010.  The pictures were turned over to the authorities in May of this year.  This was far too slow.  The diocese was conducting its own internal investigation of Ratigan, but bishops should not attempt to play cop.  Whenever such evidence surfaces it must be turned over to the authorities pronto.

2.  The prosecutor Jean Peters Baker is a fanatic pro-abort.  A former Democrat member of the Missouri House, she resigned when she was appointed as Kansas City prosecutor in May of this year.  I suspect that she intends to use Bishop Finn’s scalp to ride to higher political office.  She claims that this was all the grand jury’s doing and not hers which is risible.  Grand juries are the tools of the prosecuting attorneys and will, as the saying goes, normally indict a ham sandwich if that is what the prosecutor wants.

3.  Failure to report suspicion of sexual abuse is rarely prosecuted as demonstrated by the fact that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics routinely abort underage girls, and no Planned Parenthood affiliate has ever been successfully prosecuted for failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor.

 

 

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Bishop Finn Indicted

  • This is awful and despicable! Very disappointed , they should have reported this ASAP.

  • Pingback: The Enemy Within? « Catholic Sensibility
  • Pro-abort, stalinist show trial . . .

  • In less universally vital news: top US law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder and his DoJ special ops cadres run guns to Mexico drug terrorists, a fed and 200 civilians are killed . . . then he lies to Congress . . . silence . . .

  • Several years ago, at my nephews elevation to Monsignor in Kansas City, I shook Bishop Finn’s hand, and mentioned to him that I had read a lot about him. He said he imagined it was not good things that I read. I encouraged him with “yes it was very good.” I think there are those who have been gunning for him for a while. God bless this good bishop. It must be an awful thing to have to choose between the good of the children and the lose of a preacher of the gospel, especially since there have been so many false accusations.

  • A female principal tried to document in writing a warning to the Bishop long before but it went through an intermediary to the Bishop in a verbal abriged form that may have reduced its strength. The Bishop should have asked for the actual letter and read it. A Ms. Gaveau contended in the Boston case of Fr. Schanley that she warned Cardinal Law to his face about Schanley and one year later after she noticed Schanley still in place in a parish, she warned Cardinal Law again to his face and he noted that she should contact his auxialiaries because that’s why he had them. Christ warned the apostles that they were not to be so above others:
    Luke 22:25.
    * He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
    26
    but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.”

    The lesson from Kansas City…..if a Principal writes a letter, Bishops….be a servant and read it.

  • Bishop Finn is the epitome of prelates who enable abuse: they love the institutional church (Vatican, hierarchy) more than they love the Ecclesia (the church in the pews, the real people, real children).

    Such prelates ignore (thus enable) abuse lest it “scandalize” the institutional church. It is not surprising that Finn is among them, given his fundamentalist, Opus Dei theology which places the supremacy of Roman authority above all else.

    If you want to see what God has to say about such religious prelates, read Ezekiel 34 and Matt 23.

  • That is complete and total garabage Liz. Some of the worst protectors of abusive priests were heterodox prelates like Weakland.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/78431087.html

    The fact that Bishop Finn is completely orthodox and faithful to the magisterium has nothing to do with the fact that here he simply messed up big time.

  • Actually, Ezekiel 34:1-10 more properly applies to those liberal heterodox clerics who favor democracy in the Ecclessia and who reject the authority of the Kingdom God.

    PS, what’s wrong with Opus Dei theology? If it’s anything like what’s in the writings of its founder (Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer), then I say more power to Opus Dei! Books like the Way, the Furrow and the Forge couldn’t possibly be more Christian.

  • Whether the prosecutor supports abortion is completely irreelvant. Whether Planned Parenthood reports child abuse is irrelevant. Whether Bishop Finn is “conservative” or “liberal” theologically also is irrelevant. This is exactly why the judicial ideal is “blindness,” not only to class, ethnic and racial distinctions but political and theological ones, as well.

    The world has seen so often in this crisis that the “orthodoxy” or “heterodoxy” of prelates and priests is utterly irrelevant, which raises two interesting questions:

    1. Does one need to be “orthodox” or “heterodox” to do what is so obvious morally and ethically?

    2. Are Catholics so infatuated with “orthodoxy” and “heterodoxy” that they relegate legitimate questions about the moral behavior of their leaders to a lower place?

    I completely agree with Bill’s and Liz’s comments. The lacy of urgency Bill describes and the institutional arrogance Liz describes have been the hallmarks of the Church’s response to clerical sex-abuse at least since 1049, when St. Peter Damian wrote his treatise, “Liber Gommorianus” (“The Book of Gomorrah”), describing not only priests sexually abusing children but priests taking mistresses and other such misdeeds. Pope Leo IX initially supported Peter, then backed off under pressue. This was a thousand years ago, people!

    There’s something even worse going on here: God’s holy name is besmerched by such grotesque sin. I suggest you all pick up a copy of “Losing My Religion,” written by William Lobdell, a former editor and reporter with the Los Angeles Times. Lobdell was considering becoming an evangelical Protestant when the fiscal scandals invovling TBN and Paul Crouch broke. Then he was considering becoming Catholic when the clerical sex-abuse crisis in Boston broke. As a result, he couldn’t believe that a just God would allow such travesties to happen in His Name, so he became an atheist.

    Lobdell’s logic might be extremely faulty (just read Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 23). But how many others have rejected God and His Son because of legitimate disgust with ecclesiastical corruption? Do you think that a holy, righteous God — the quintessence of purity — will not hold the perpetrators to account in a way that would boggle the mind of the average Christian?

    God is not mocked. The Church’s leadership long ago rejected Jesus’ model of self-sacrificing service described in John 13-16. It has sacrificed that mandate on the altar of power, wealth, secular influence, intellectual vanity, institutional arrogance and a pervasive sense of entitlement. It has infected too many of its members with those same qualities. I hope Bishop Finn’s indictment is the start of many more such indictments. Only when the Church’s real values (those I just described) are threatened will it act with the aggressiveness it lacked since the 11th century.

    If you don’t believe me, then ask yourselves this: Would the Council of Trent ever taken place without the challenges Luther brought?

  • Joe, the huge chip you have on your shoulder against the Catholic Church is getting old really fast. Lose it when you comment here or I will ban you. This is not a forum for enemies of the Church.

    The motivation of the prosecutor is always relevant in a case involving selective prosecution which is what this is partially about since these types of prosecutions are so rare. The animus of a prosecutor against the target of prosecution is always a factor to consider when examining any prosecution. I await with eager anticipation Prosecutor Baker bringing such charges against the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in her jurisdiction. (Crickets chirp.)

    Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are always important to believing Catholics. Since you are no longer a believing Catholic such distinctions are not important to you, but they are highly important to the vast majority of people who read this blog.

    Your attempt to portray the Church as irredeemably corrupt is a time worn staple of anti-Catholic bigots. Corruption within the Church has been a problem since Judas betrayed Our Lord. It is a battle that will be fought until Gabriel blows his trump and it does not alter an iota the fact that the Catholic faith is the True Faith, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

    I hope the prosecution of Bishop Finn will be an object lesson to bishops that they need to turn over all allegations of abuse to the authorities immediately. Bishops are not criminal investigators and they only get into trouble when they adopt that role. However, you are delusional if you think that Catholics cannot recognize the double standard deployed against the Church in this matter, and the attempts by enemies of the Church to use such scandals as a club to wield against her. Catholics are quite capable of insisting that the officials of the Church act against predatory priests and bishops while also combating our foes outside of the Church.

  • I hope this example will be ANOTHER warning to all Church officials that this type of behavior and / or oversight is unacceptable. If mistakes were made he should be punished. If I was him – I would immediately resign, take my punishment and resign myself to a life and prayer and penance. This is the only solution that I can see.

    I just don’t understand – what is it going to take for the leaders to deal properly with this issue. Hasn’t it been in the news enough?

  • Pingback: SATURDAY LATE-AFTERNOON EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • “Would the Council of Trent (have) ever taken place without the challenges Luther brought?”

    We don’t know. I suspect it might not have, but even so, that simply shows that God can always bring good (the strengthening/purification of the Faith) out of evil (scandal followed by schism/apostasy).

  • Don,
    Maybe what made this legally mandatory is the fact that Bishop Finn took an oath three years prior as part of a court settlement to report immediately henceforth in another case that cost the Diocesan peoples one and all….ten million dollars. Wouldn’t that court oath nullify discretion in this case on the part of the prosecutor. In effect, Bishop Finn was also breaking his word as given in the previous case’s settlement details. Catholics from the previous case could have ambushed the prosecutor on the settlement violation….?and asked for more money perchance?

  • Bill, any agreement in a civil settlement would have absolutely no relevance in this criminal prosecution. The Bishop is being prosecuted for not complying with a Missouri statute with a criminal penalty attached. If the participants in the settlement believe the Bishop has breached the terms of the settlement then they could bring a civil suit. Civil and criminal litigation are two separate animals.

  • “Would the Council of Trent (have) ever taken place without the challenges Luther brought?”

    Probably since such Church councils were a common feature of that period in Church history and there were calls for a council, many of them from popes, to reform the Church predating the appearance of “Pope” Luther. The V Lateran Council sat from 1512-1515, and I have no doubt other councils would have appeared in due course without Luther.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018b.htm

  • Question of fact: Is presence of child pornography on a person’s Personal Computer considered prima facie evidence of that person’s being a child abuser?
    Just asking.
    TeaPot562

  • Don,

    Go get ’em! Nice post, and I absolutely believe that you have to take into account the prosecutor’s political leanings in this indictment. Great point about Planned Parenthood monsters not being prosecuted for their abuse of minors. But here’s what I want to know from the prosecutor: Why wasn’t Bob Murphy, the Vicar General who gave Bishop Finn a very small part of the story not indicted? Why was the principal who wrote the letter to Bishop Finn calling attention to Ratigan’s inappropriate acts not indicted? As a principal I believe she falls under the mandated reporting rules. It’s sickening that she saw these actions of Ratigan with a camera, heard from others that he did the same thing in front of them, and did not go the the authorities even simultaneously with the diocese and instead allowed her allegations to be stuck in Bob Murphy’s hands while Ratigan continued to abuse children.

    Where is the accountability from the people who are required to report these types of creepy behavior? There is no question that Bishop Finn was not vigilant enough in keeping the tainted from positions of authority (Murphy has had credible allegations of abuse). There also is no question that he did not act swiftly and decisively enough to segregate Ratigan at the moment he knew about these photographs. But I can’t figure out why he is indicted while the other main players are left alone. Bigotry and politics have to be considered as motives.

  • All excellent questions Scott. Murphy and the principal would both have run afoul of the statute, along with any number of other people within the Diocese who had knowledge of the facts of the case. That the smaller fry were not indicted is an indication that the prosecutor wanted maximum publicity by targeting the Bishop, and she got the publicity she wanted. Ironically, as this plays out, I think she may have a hard time getting a conviction against the Bishop since she will have a more difficult time proving early direct knowledge on his part as opposed to people further up the information chain that led to the Bishop. Of course, all of this has very little to do with punishing an actual violation of the statute and everything to do with furthering the political career of Jean Peters Baker. I have spent the past 29 years at the bar, defended hundreds of people accused of crimes, most of them felonies, as private defense counsel, served as court appointed defense counsel in dozens of cases, and been appointed a special prosecutor in two cases. Based upon my experience, it is pretty obvious to me what is going on in regard to this prosecution.

  • “Is presence of child pornography on a person’s Personal Computer considered prima facie evidence of that person’s being a child abuser?
    Just asking.”

    No. However mere knowing possession of child pornography on a computer is a federal offense and is subject to 5-20 years in prison. People need to be very careful who they allow to have access to their computers.

  • Good points from Don and Scott. I also wondered why Monsignor Murphy, in particular, is not being prosecuted. Having followed this from the first reports it seems clear to me that he chose to be less than forthright with the information he passed to Bishop Finn. It seems to me the case against him is much stronger than it is against the Bishop. (Please note I AM NOT saying that Bishop Finn handled this properly).

    On a personal note I, once again, am very frustrated how hard the ecclesiastical authorities sometimes make it for the orthodox laity who Love and want to defend the Church. I understand the Church is a target but do we have to make it so easy to hit?

  • “I understand the Church is a target but do we have to make it so easy to hit?”

    Well said Lance! When Bishop Finn became aware of the facts in this case he should have immediately contacted the authorities himself. That would have not only been the right thing to do, but the prudent thing to do. His failure to do so will only give enemies of the Church much fodder for their attacks, and dismay faithful Catholics. All very sad and all very unnecessary.

  • I would suggest everybody read The Anchoress’ post and the comments that follow:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2011/06/07/bishop-finn-epic-fail-and-fallout/

  • “Would the Council of Trent ever taken place without the challenges Luther brought?”

    Councils generally are meant to address heresy. Heresy is always and everywhere wrong. If Luther remained a heretic and apostate even unto death, it would have been better that he had never been born. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

    You couldn’t have picked a worse argument there, Joseph.

    That being said, regardless of civil law (which may or may not be just) the bishop had a moral duty to protect his flock. It appears that the Bishop failed to meet this obligation and if he had then the consequences of civil law would not now be an issue. It is a sad commentary on the bishops that it is their moral failings and not their civil ones which have caused such great scandal.

  • First let me start off with saying that I believe that Bishop Finn and the diocese screwed up big time on this by not going directly to the authorities but I think the article brings up some good points. IMHO, I think there was some politics involved. Let’s just say that criminals get away with murder in Jackson County. Literally. Unless Jackson County prosecutors have a slam dunk case they don’t file and people go free.

    In regard to the letter from the principle. That was a good 8 months before the porn findings came out and I believe the letter was more along the lines of, “this guy isn’t right” and “these behaviors aren’t really appropriate.” More along the lines of she saw red flags and was bringing it to someones attention so I don’t think she would have had to hotline it.

    My question, and maybe you have an idea about this, Donald. The crime occurred in Clay County, which is where the priest was charged and where he is sitting in jail. The chancery is in Jackson County. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the bishop would have been charged in Clay County since that is where the crime occurred?? I don’t know the answer to that.

  • The venue for the non-reporting would probably be where the non-reporting occurred which is the site of the chancery.

    By not pursuing the small fry who had prior knowledge the prosecutor is allowing the Bishop’s defense team to raise numerous issues about the prosecutor playing games with the statutory report requirement, and only using it in this case to nail the Bishop who had no first hand knowledge of any of the facts. If the Bishop is guilty about not disclosing the computer porn in a timely fashion, why does the prosecutor not prosecute everyone else who had knowledge of it prior to the disclosure? The answer is obvious: Her target is the Bishop. Prosecutors have broad discretion as to whom to prosecute, but it is not unlimited. Courts can act if a prosecutor is obviously abusing her discretion. This is not an open and shut case, and there are numerous legal defenses of the Bishop in regard to the charge of not reporting. Stay tuned.

  • While this prosecutor may be a ‘fanatic pro-abort’ as you say, you will remember the recent (and ongoing) vigorous criminal investigation into the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is spearheaded by a devout practising Catholic.
    Given the times in which we live I say pray the rosary, be prudent in your judgements, trust in Almighty God, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • A devout Catholic Philadelphia’s DA may claim to be but three decisions suggest to me that fairness and justice are not among his virtues: try everyone together so that Msgr. Lynn will be tarred with the same brush as the perpetrators, publish the grand jury report with fanfare so as to taint the jury pool, and make a very public request to put our past cardinals on the stand to bolster the impression in the pool of potential jurers that there is a grand conspiracy.

    These may be the tools of an ambitious DA but they are not the tools of an honest man.

  • “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)
    Applying this to myself, I resist the temptation to comment on any of the previous entries.

  • [N]o Planned Parenthood affiliate has ever been successfully prosecuted for failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor…

    -Donald R. McClarey

    Okay, so the prosecutor is diabolical. (Kind’a tautological, that.) And I’ll grant you that the prosecutor has a deep problem with the concept of equal treatment under the law.

    Still, I don’t care for these Oh Yeah, What About Planned Parenthood (OYWAPP) comparisons. The Church is not called to match Planned Parenthood’s standards.

  • Indeed not Michael! However, prosecutors should not be in the business of using the Church as a whipping boy while allowing Planned Parenthood to go on with business as usual, aborting underage minor girls, and never obeying mandatory sexual reporting statutes. I have little doubt that the only reason why Bishop Finn is being prosecuted is to further the political career of the prosecutor, and I attempt to call her out on this every chance I get, especially, as I expect, if the prosecution of the Bishop is sui generis in the manner in which this prosecutor deals with institutions that fail to report suspected abuse promptly.

  • i agree on all counts, Donald.

  • The hierarchy in this country has had this coming for a long time… I could have selected more worthy recipients of criminal prosecution (Bernard Law?), and certainly picking on a relatively “conservative” bishop has a smell about it. But the law is the law is the law, and these guys have known for years that the delay and coverup game is a dangerous one.

    With respect to the American church winking at clerical sexual deviancy, it’s high time that some serious housecleaning happened. I wouldn’t pick the civil authorities as my broom, but if the Pope won’t or can’t do it, well, what can we expect?

  • I agree Mr. McKenna.

    When one is in a position subject to great scrutiny, one must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Surely, given the timeframe that these events occurred, the diocese knew that everything they did would be scrutinized. What in the world possessed them to do as they did?

    I suspect this is one of those things that looks clear from the outside but is much more convoluted from the inside. I suspect that, when the Bishop first heard of the matter, he assigned someone to look into it and sincerely prayed that it was other than it appeared. I can imagine him praying that the pictures related to girls of age and the diocese looking for outside confirmation that the images were, indeed, “child pornography” under the law before they absorbed another scandal and sacrificed another priest.

    I do not say this by way of excuse. It just strikes me that priests tend to view their brethren as something akin to family and may not behave in entirely rational ways where there remains any hope that the accused is innocent. This is precisely why Bishops must be leaders.

  • Why did Bp Finn do what he did? I suspect it’s because he probably holds to liberal beliefs. On the 9/7/10 post on the Seeking Justice blog, he’s quoted as coming out against the death penalty. Opposition to the dp has always been a hallmark of liberalism. To the best of my knowledge, people who espouse this idea never hold it in isolation from other liberal beliefs. It’s part of a package of ideas common to liberalism. I suspect in the next few months we’ll discover he does have other liberal ideas.

  • these guys have known for years that the delay and coverup game is a dangerous one.

    There was no cover-up, merely a delay in reporting that the man had been in possession of pornography.

    Where I live (a diocese which had a high accusation rate), the term ‘cover-up’ makes little sense in aught but a few cases, because the lapse of time between occurrance of supposed offenses and complaints to the bishop exceeded the statute of limitations.

    With respect to the American church winking at clerical sexual deviancy, it’s high time that some serious housecleaning happened. I wouldn’t pick the civil authorities as my broom, but if the Pope won’t or can’t do it, well, what can we expect?

    There are about 3,000 bishops worldwide. That is a lot of direct reports. The number of people employed by the Holy See (in all capacities) is in the low thousands. The Holy See can set standards and adjudicate some cases, but it does not have the manpower to repair the problem on its own.

  • “Opposition to the dp has always been a hallmark of liberalism. To the best of my knowledge, people who espouse this idea never hold it in isolation from other liberal beliefs.”

    This would be absurd if you hadn’t added the phrase “[t]o the best of my knowledge.” I suppose that, if that statement represents the “best” of your knowledge, I can’t be all that upset with the characterization.

  • “Finn and the diocese had reasonable cause to believe that the Ratigan may have abused a child but did not report it to authorities between Dec. 16, 2010, and May 11, 2011, the indictment alleged. The indictment said previous suspicions about Ratigan’s behavior around children and the discovery in December 2010 of hundreds of photos of children on Ratigan’s laptop were evidence of that concern.”

    “Those photos included images of a child’s naked vagina and upskirt pictures focusing on the child’s crotch.”

    “Finn and the diocese also must have had concerns about Ratigan’s conduct because they had restricted him from being around children after the laptop images were discovered, according to the charges.”

    Ummm, THAT’s the delay and coverup of clerical sexual deviancy at issue. More than “merely a delay” IMHO.

    As for Rome, they’ve known for DECADES who the offenders are amongst the bishops; certainly by the time the Boston Globe is doing exposes, you’d think Rome would already know of the problem…. or in Ireland, for another egregious example.

    No, for YEARS, beginning in the 80’s, Rome has steadfastly refused to take decisive action against the worst of the episcopal offenders. Result: an atmosphere where bishops reliably expect no consequences to the delay and coverup shuffle. It wouldn’t take more than one or two high-profile removals from important sees for the message to be sent. For whatever reason, Rome has chosen not to do it.

    Now our enemies will.

  • Response was: pick one or two egregious offenders, they’re not hard to find in this day and age, and deprive them of their sees. It’s simple human nature that if the bishops feel no heat from above (i.e., that they risk their “careers” if they are not diligent in policing their priests) they will be lax. This is what has happened, but now, that they face the risk of prosecution, I’ll wager chanceries around the nation are taking a different and tougher look at these kinds of cases.

    Do you doubt that there is a culture of cover up? Try: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm
    and
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_16_29/ai_n15779345/
    In Philadelphia, for example, the grand jury concluded:
    “In its callous, calculating manner, the Archdiocese’s handling of the abuse scandal, was at least as immoral as the abuse itself. The evidence before us established that officials at the highest level (read Cardinals) received reports of abuse; that they chose not to conduct any meaningful investigation of those reports; that they left dangerous priests in place or transferred them; that they never alerted parents to the dangers posed by these offenders; that they intimidated or retaliated against victims who came forward; that they manipulated ‘treatment” efforts in order to create a false impression of action and that they did many of these things to avoid civic liability.”
    Ummm, so what’s not responsive?

They Said If We Voted for McCain We’d Be Sending Our Troops to Fight in Endless Wars

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

And they were right.

Oh, and what’s a little Congressional approval between friends?

President Obama notified Congress today that he is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help battle a rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Gee, so nice of the president to notify Congress that he’s sending American troops to engage in another country’s war.  I guess he gets a gold star for doing it in advance.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to They Said If We Voted for McCain We’d Be Sending Our Troops to Fight in Endless Wars

  • Yep, that’s the Nobel Peace Prize President.

  • I think, when considering situations like this, it is always a good idea to review Justice Jackson’s concurrence from Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, where he lays out the constitutional boundaries and analysis of the executive’s power. For what it’s worth, I suspect we are in number 2.

    “1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

    2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

    3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

  • With every passing day, Ron Paul makes more and more sense to the average American person. The military complex is instituted, and unless somebody brave understands that, every situation will be turned into an opportunity to engage in war.

  • Ron Paul has as much chance of being elected President as he does of being elected Pope. Having said that, the best chance of having a truly huge war would be by electing a deranged isolationist wacko like Ron Paul (R. Outer Limits). His election would be a signal to Israel that they were now truly on their own. After their pre-emptive strike on Iran, only a fool like Paul who lives in an isolationist alternate reality would think that we would not inevitably be drawn into the conflict. Additionally our foes would be emboldened around the globe, knowing that Paul’s solutions would be either to cut and run or issue letters of marque and reprisal, and launch attacks against American interests throughout the world. If you want to see the biggest war since World War II, cast your vote for Ron Paul!

  • launch attacks against American interests throughout the world.

    Which brings up at least two questions: (1) what (or whose) American interests? and (2) why are they all over the world?

    As an Amercian, I do not recall any particular interest I have in Central Africa.

  • You raise fair and important questions, c matt. The single most difficult question a superpower confronts is defining its interests. A narrow definition would include only those things that happen within its borders, acknowledging that other nations are responsible for their own problems and borders. Sure, a country could take measures that adversely affect our standard of living, but it is not obvious why we should properly define our interests to include such measures and consequences. A generous definition would include any measures and consequences that greatly affect worldwide stability. The strongest kid in the playground may have responsibilities that extend beyond self-interest narrowly defined. Determining the precise boundaries of a nation’s interest and its responsibilities is an exercise of prudence at its most difficult, since it must take into account the art of the possible as well as the assessment of consequences. Ron Paul’s definition would likely have resulted in policies that would have kept us out of WWII. Perhaps that would have been for the best, but that is hardly obvious.

  • Mr McClarey,

    You can state your points without sounding like a Zionist neo-con. Only a half educated protestant who does not understand history would position himself with Israel as you have. You and Glenn Beck have a lot in common there. I hope that is not where you get your theology and history education.

    What interests do you have in Israel as a State? The actual religious and observant Jews are still a Diaspora people. They understand that they cannot get their way by the “world” intervening and granting them rights. They understand their rights come from God, and God alone. The same UN taht would give them powers are the UN that adopt anti-humane laws. Does it not occur to you that this could be a deceitful game?

    You defend the neo-Israel state unabashedly sir, and this can lead to worse situations than you outline.

    Ron Paul understands the issues, and that is why he is not afraid to be called names by your likes. He does not part his hair on one side today and then the other tomorrow.

    A war needs to be provoked, and Bush did more than his fair share in provoking middle-eastern countries into more and more hatred of the Jews, by causing uncertain casualties in that area and such. On the other hand, while Obama might seem different, he has done well by encouraging revolutions and such to elicit wars (You must love him now that he is figuring out a way to go to war with Iran…something McCain would have done)

    You defend Neo-Israel, but who is speaking out for the Christians forced to move out of their homes and being killed by our drones?

    There are scapegoats in this back and forth–and polarizing situation. The Muslims and the Jews are being pitted against each other by our Military Complex.

    Thomas Aquinas and Ron Paul have a lot in common when it comes to world philosophy, but you sir, you have the same philosophy as the progressives of the 1920s who guised themselves as Democrats turned Republican so as to divide the party.

    Ron Paul figured out this was a game a long time ago and is earnestly trying to wake America up, but people like you are having a hard time waking up. It’s unfortunate.

    I was once a neo-con, and then I actually stopped watching FoxNews, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Hannity –and then I prayed. It was only then I started to think for myself.

    Open up the catechism and the summa and try to disprove Ron Paul from that standpoint. It is impossible. True conservatism means not taking sides–not out of fear, but rather so that costly mistakes are not made and regretted.

    Phil

  • I wonder though if there isn’t something in the background of this that we are missing.

    I can’t see any political benefit to this move. This article got me thinking and, although I have no independent knowledge on which to base an opinion, I am inclined to stand down from opposing the policy until I better understand the stakes.

    http://www.riskwatchdog.com/2011/10/17/what-is-the-us-up-to-in-uganda-and-can-hollande-beat-sarkozy-in-2012/

  • Mike,

    You are wrong here:

    “Ron Paul’s definition would likely have resulted in policies that would have kept us out of WWII. Perhaps that would have been for the best, but that is hardly obvious.”

    Ron Paul is only willing to go to war when the war is deemed just by the Congress, which is what our Church teaches us. There also have to be other determining factors in teh declaration of war.

    On that note, Congress declared war in 1941. It was clear and there was a mission.

    Phil

  • Yeah, anybody is who takes issue with Ron Paul’s isolationism is not only a Zionist and a neo-con, but also a Glenn Beck groupie. Gheesh. Some people blame Bush; others the Joooooos.

  • Ron Paul is only willing to go to war when the war is deemed just by the Congress,

    Huzzah for circular logic.

    And Phil, lighten up the tone or you will no longer be permitted to comment.

  • Phil,
    FDR undertook policies that incurred the wrath of both Japan and Germany precisely by defining our national interest broadly in ways that were incompatible with the aims of those fascist states. It is highly doubtful that Paul would have undertaken similar policies, meaning that Japan would have been able to achieve its ends without attacking Pearl Harbor, meaning no declaration of war and ensuing reciprocal declarations with Germany. Without US intervention the outcome of WWII would likely have been very different.

  • Mr. Zummo,

    Mr. McClarey’s vicious response was uncalled for. My initial comment did not warrant his response.

    I apologize for the tone in my response.

    Phil

  • Mr. McClarey’s vicious response was uncalled for. My initial comment did not warrant his response.

    What part of his response was vicious? I’m not seeing it.

  • but who is speaking out for the Christians forced to move out of their homes and being killed by our drones?

    There is no indigenous Christian population in Yemen or in Afghanistan.

  • “You can state your points without sounding like a Zionist neo-con.”

    Bye, bye Phil. I have a low tolerance for anti-semites and conspiracy mongers. You are banned from this site.

  • “(1) what (or whose) American interests? and (2) why are they all over the world?”

    (1) Name the area and I’ll tell you cmatt. In the Middle East it is oil and making sure a rogue state doesn’t take out an American city with nuclear terrorism. In Central Africa we have few interests and Obama sending troops, especially such a small number of troops, is boneheaded.

    (2) I would refer you to our history. You may not think we should have interests around the globe, but the fact is we do. If we are not present other powers will be only too happy to exercise power as we retreat to Fortress America.

Conrad Black’s Messy Attack on Scalia

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

Conrad Black has written one of the most rambling and fairly incoherent things I’ve ever seen in quite some time.  I’m not quite sure what his overall point is, but he ends up attacking Antonin Scalia  of all people.

But some are, including Justice Antonin Scalia, who, as Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times on October 2, has attacked the complainant in a civil suit to stop the banning of co-ed dormitories at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. As Ms. Dowd pointed out, Justice Scalia has not hesitated prior to this to volunteer publicly either his solidarity with his Church militant, or his dissent from it. But in the case of the Roman Catholic Church’s long-held and oft-expressed (by four recent popes) hostility to the death penalty, Justice Scalia recently told Duquesne University in Pittsburgh that if he thought “that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign.” Since he could not possibly be unaware of the views of the Holy See over the past 50 years (John Paul I was the only pope in that time who did not reign long enough to opine on the subject), nor of the authority of the pope to speak on such matters for the whole Church, it is not clear why he is not delivering his letter of resignation to the president instead of sticking his nose into the dormitory rules in one of the national capital’s universities.

To move the inquiry that Ms. Dowd usefully started to entirely secular matters, there could be searching questions about why the Supreme Court has sat like a great suet pudding for decades while the Bill of Rights has been raped by the prosecution service with the connivance of the legislators, a tri-branch travesty against the civil rights of the whole population, but I will spare readers another dilation on that subject. However, Justice Scalia’s preoccupation with the dormitories of the Catholic University of America (a matter that is now, to the Justice’s chagrin, sub judice), is, in the circumstances and to say the least, bizarre.

Leaving that aside, the report card on the co-equal branches is not uplifting: The legislators and the executive wimped out on abortion and immigration. The beehive of conscientious jurists on the Supreme Court applied a completely amoral test to get to a defensible conclusion on abortion when it was dumped by default on them to determine. And its most vocal current Roman Catholic member, swaddling himself in his faith, upholds the death penalty in contradiction to the popes, holds in pectore his views on abortion (which is not now before the high court, though not for absence of petitions), and thunders fire and brimstone about coeducational university dormitories, which is not, I think, a subject that the See of Peter has addressed.

This is just bizarre.  From relying on Maureen Dowd as a source of criticism of Scalia’s Catholicism, to his complete non sequiter about Scalia’s involvement in the CUA suit, to Black completely misconstruing Church teaching on the death penalty; this turned into an unholy mess of an article that already has no clear thesis.

I was all set to write a response, but Shannen Coffin has already done so masterfully.   I’d be violating fair use to copy and paste the whole thing, but you must read the whole thing.  But here are the key passages:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Conrad Black’s Messy Attack on Scalia

  • It looks like Coffin’s comment has been deleted.

    I read Black’s article, and there’s no way around it, that’s some bad writing. I even read the Dowd article on the chance that it made sense. It didn’t. I’ve never seen her construct an argument where one point follows another.

    There’s an additional historical inaccuracy in Black’s article that no one’s commented on: the idea that the Supreme Court was forced by the failure of elected officials to step into the abortion debate in 1973. You could make an argument – a valid one, I think – that the elected branches could have been far more aggressive since Roe was decided. But the few efforts they have made have been blocked by a Court that refuses to yield any ground on the issue. Black’s argument simply ignores the facts of then and now.

    They’re right that it’s improper for a Justice to speak out about a court case, though.

  • The post is still there, but I think he deleted one parenthetical aside that he thought was too much of a low blow.

    Some of the commenters on Black’s post (and on his post about the post on the Corner) made the same point you have about legislative attempts to do something about abortion.

    It’s just an all-around sloppy article.

  • The solid gold line has got to be this:
    Since he could not possibly be unaware of the views of the Holy See … nor of the authority of the pope to speak on such matters for the whole Church, it is not clear why he is not delivering his letter of resignation to the president ….

    Accusing someone of ignorance of something that he clearly is ignorant of himself.

    Dude. Meta. (/stoner voice)

  • How on earth Conrad Black could ever be regarded as some kind of expert on Catholicism, I don’t know. I have to admit I’m a bit biased against him because he ran HUNDREDS of newspapers into the ground financially and quality-wise (google “Hollinger International”), looted pension plans for some of the companies he ran, and played a big part in making it difficult if not impossible for people like myself to make a decent living in the profession we trained for (newspaper journalism), in order to finance a lavish lifestyle.

    All that said, a good case can be made that his actions didn’t rise to the level of federal crimes such as wire and mail fraud, and that the feds were overzealous in their prosecution.

    In 2007 Black wrote an 1,100-page exculpatory biography of Richard Nixon. If it’s anywhere near as rambling and incoherent as the column referenced above, I would say that being forced to read it would be my idea of Purgatory 🙂

945th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

Today, October 14 Anno Domini 2011, the Battle of Hastings occurred between the Anglo-Saxon King Harold and Duke William of Normandy.

The following is an animated version of the Bayeux Tapestry [1].

King Harold had a depleted force of 5,000 foot soldiers from a decisive victory of the combined Viking forces of Tostig and Harald Hadrada in the north of England the previous month.  Whilst Duke William had a force of 15,000 infantry, cavalry, and archers.  Facing superior numbers King Harold took up a defensive position that nearly won the day if it wasn’t for Duke William’s resilient command of a deteriorating situation.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to 945th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings

Occupy Wall Street Goons Spit on Sailor

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

42 Responses to Occupy Wall Street Goons Spit on Sailor

  • If the Fleabaggers do this now “when the wood is green” (so to speak), then what will they do “when the wood is dry?” In fact, what will they do should Obama get defeated in ’12?

  • I think it would be a good idea for the Coast Guard to show up at OWS with billy clubs and soap and literally clean up the mess these fools are making!

  • Considering some of the sailors I have known over the years I would enjoin caution on the Occupy Wall Street crowd about spitting on them. Spitting on a female Coast Guard sailor, probably petite, might be fun. Spitting on a sailor who is male, 6 foot and 200 lbs of muscle and bone might not be.

  • Meanwhile, in other news, compensation for the chief executives of America’s biggest corporations soared 28 percent in 2011 from last year on average, according to a new report.
    As millions of Americans remain out of work and Social Security recipients continue to receive no increase in payments, is it any wonder that people are taking to the streets? As oil companies reap billions in obscene profits and other big companies pocket billions without paying taxes (GE), the Republicans aim their heavy guns on the most defenseless of all citizens: seniors who depend on Medicare and Social Security to merely survive.
    Old but true: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and it’s business as usual in America.

  • By the way, I served in the Navy and a little spit never bothered me. We used to shine our shoes with it.

  • Joe,

    When you reference General Electric above, remember that one of Obama’s biggest supporters is Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE and former head of its Health Care Division. He is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Under his leadership MS NBC (while it was owned by GE) ended up being the unsolicited spokesperson for Obama during the ’08 election.

    BTW, Father Philip Powell at “Domine, Da Mihi Hanc Aquam” revealed the identities of the big bucks people who are supporting the fleabaggers on Wallstreet, in Boston and elsewhere. The usual wealthy liberal progressive Democrats show up:

    http://hancaquam.blogspot.com/2011/10/lefty-hypocrisy-or-suicidal-tendencies.html

    Limo Liberals who support the Occupy Wall St Circus:

    #1 Yoko Ono Net Worth – $500 million.

    #2 Russell Simmons Net Worth – $325 million

    #3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth – $80 million*

    #4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth – $80 million

    #5 Kanye West Net Worth – $70 million

    #6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth – $65 million

    #7 Susan Sarandon Net Worth – $50 million

    #8 Michael Moore Net Worth – $50 million

    #9 Tim Robbins Net Worth – $50 million

    #10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth – $35.5 million

  • Yeah, I know, Paul, about Obama and his GE pal. A pox on both of them. Why is this a “circus” rather than legitimate protest? From the founding of our nation, the people have always had a right to redress their grievances. From the Declaration of Independence:

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    That’s strong language. Sounds close to sedition if uttered in today’s vernacular would likely land someone in jail.

  • Joe,

    What the Tea Party is doing is what you pointed out, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Tea Partiers want Obama’s corporate socialism and Chicago gangsters gone (and preferrably in jail).

    What the Flea Party is doing is entirely different. They have their Red Flags, their Class Warfare signs and posters, their socialist chanting, etc. Their aims are NOT the destruction of despotism but the advocacy of a nanny government that will give them everything they want. These fleabaggers generally reject authority, especially that of Christianity (the Church in particular). They want Caesar as their god to take care of them and give them iPad and iPods and the other wondrous computerized machinery of Apple or Microsoft while they do nothing to support themselves. They are spoiled little brats who have defecated on police cars, harrassed those in uniform and generally made a mess of everything. The most they deserve is 39 lashes.

  • Use of labels such as “flea baggers”, “the “Flea Party” does not advance your argument. And as far as a “nanny state” is concerned, seems to me that the Wall Street fat cats and the multimillionaires are the ones who have been miking the public teat all these years.

    One, however, could take comfort in the words of Jesus: “Woe unto ye that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.”

  • “By the way, I served in the Navy and a little spit never bothered me. We used to shine our shoes with it.”

    Somehow I suspect that you would have a different reaction Joe if someone were spitting on you. However, I trust that your comment was an attempt at humor and not to be taken seriously.

    In regard to the 2010 elections, the Democrats outraised the Republicans in political contributions on the national and Congressional level:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

  • Joe,

    I stand by the description “flea baggers.”

    A friend of mine goes on further at a different forum to describe the relationship of lilly white rich liberals and their advocacy for this flea bagger rioting. In this case, RINO Bloomburg is involved.

    —–

    So Mayor Bloombergs live-in girlfriend sits on the board of Brookfield, the company that owns Zuccotti Park, the place the Fleabaggers have set up camp. Is this part of the reason that the Mayor backed off his threat to have the Fleabaggers removed? Maybe they (Brookfield) don’t want too much attention for some reason and they applied some pressure.

    http://blog.littlesis.org/2011/10/05/the-public-private-partnership-behind-zuccotti-park/

    But wait, there’s more! (http://bit.ly/neN3Ig)

    Brookfield just got a green business loan, one of the last to do so, from the administration in the amount of $135.8 million. Heather Podesta, the sister-in-law of John Podesta owns the lobbying firm that represents Brookfield. John Podesta is the director for the Center For American Progress, which is funded by…wait for it…GEORGE SOROS!!

  • Meanwhile, in other news

    Why change the subject Joe? It’s okay that these degenerates spit on people because some CEOs make a lot of money? You’re justifying bad behavior through the use of a non sequiter. Shame on you.

  • These are the same rats as their VC-sympathizer predecessors.

    I served in the USAF in the last years of the Vietnam War. A few times I was traveling on orders in civ airports. No one spat on me. If they did, I was taught to respect my uniform. There would have been violence. Of course, I was six feet and 185, and I don’t lisp.

    Michael Walsh: “About the only thing the Tea Party and the unwashed rabble occupying Zuccotti Park have in common is their deep loathing for the financial and political nomenklatura who precipitated the economic collapse of 2008 and — thanks to their massive campaign donations to Obama — have emerged unscathed while the rest of us suffer. Any other resemblance is purely coincidental.”

  • The fact that someone in the OWS crowd is flying a Che Guevara flag says all you need to know about this bunch….as did the Viet Cong flags that flew during anti-war protests in the 60s.

  • Paul, shame on me? Equating the spitting of someone in a protest is akin to getting a flea bite on the Bataan Death March. A hideous act, but where’s your perspective and memory? Juxtapose big bosses making nearly 30 percent more while the layoffs go on and the Wall Street continues to suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

    A trillion in TARP money and Wall Street payoffs, engineered by both parties, to bail out Goldman, AIG and six banks who had set aside $170 billion in bonuses to be divvied up by a few at the top while 15 million were stranded on the unemployment lines.

    How soon we forget?

  • Joe,

    Wasn’t it the Obamanation of Desolation who insisted on all those corporate bailouts? And isn’t it Obama who is being shielded by those fleabaggers protesting against the very corporations whom Obama bailed out? And isn’t it the rich lilly white liberal actors, actresses and other malcontents of wealth untold who are financing and otherwise supporting the fleabaggers?

    For a different point of view, read this:

    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/10/14/ibbetson-the-%e2%80%9coccupy%e2%80%9d-groups-shield-obama/?subscriber=1

    I am all for cutting the umbilical cord of corporate socialism between the Obama administration and his croonies in big corporations like GE. We can start that by voting him out of office, and then giving these neo-hippie miscreants defecating on police cars the 39 lashes they deserve, followed by cold showers with lots of soap.

  • Joe, I find it irritating when people change the subject because it makes their side look bad. This isn’t a post about the worthiness of TARP or the bailouts (although as the other Paul noted, it’s Obama who promoted them), but on the behavior of the crowd. So yes, shame on you for excusing disgusting behavior.

  • Yes, Paul, read carefully, I said “both parties” so Obama was in on it as much as anyone. When people are angry, the often do despicable things. Spitting, defecating and all the other reprehensible actions are deplorable.

    But where is the outrage when American taxpayers are continually raped and when so many suffer due to corporate and individual greed?

    I remain a staunch conservative on social issues — abortion, sexual morality, etc. — but this country was built on dissent, best expressed and effected through peaceful and non-violent means not by an unruly few who cross the line.

  • Paul, “disgusting behavior” has a broad range of applications.

  • “But where is the outrage when American taxpayers are continually raped and when so many suffer due to corporate and individual greed?”

    Joe, you forgot politician greed and lust for power, which historically exceeds all the rest, Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all being outstanding examples.

    Interestingly, the fleabaggers seem to support exactly those kinds of people. Why am I NOT surprised.

  • “I remember my youth and the feeling that will never come back anymore – the feeling that I could last forever, outlast the sea, the earth, and all men; the deceitful feeling that lures us on to joys, to perils, to love, to vain effort – to death; the triumphant conviction of strength, the heat of life in the handful of dust, the glow in the heart that with every year grows dim, grows cold, grows small, and expires – and expires, too soon, too soon – before life itself.”

    from “Youth”, a short story, by Joseph Conrad

  • Paul, how easy and simplistic it is to point the finger of blame at history’s famous individual villains, ignoring the masses who followed and enabled them. I would recommend Eric Hoffer’s True Believer to see how mass movements such as religions, fascism and communism gained traction by drawing adherents willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals.

  • “…see how mass movements such as religions, fascism and communism gained traction by drawing adherents willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals.”

    Exactly correct. And that’s Obama’s national socialist Democracy and the fleabaggers.

  • “The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.”

    Eric Hoffer

  • I would wager that as long as Lenin, Stalin and Hitler controlled the money, they really didn’t hate it all that much. What they hated was someone other than them doing the controlling. Oh yeah – those evil capitalists.

  • Joe,
    Stop your lies. The myth about GE not paying taxes has been debunked over and over again. Facts matter, even if they may not fit your silly narrative. The “reporter” who broke that story mis-read GE’s annual report. A stupid mistake with legs apparently.

  • Mike, no doubt new versions cooked up by the rewrite boys at the Ministry of Truth.

  • Report from the field, sort of: I stepped outside about an hour ago to watch an “Occupy Springfield, Illinois” rally march through downtown. The line extended for a full city block or more, and I’m not good at crowd estimates, but I’m going to guess 500-1,000 people participating. Mostly white middle class looking folk, middle aged and younger, including kids in strollers, carrying signs with slogans like “End the Fed” and “Money (Does Not Equal) Speech” and “Stop Media Censorship,” etc. They kept chanting “The people, united, will never be defeated!” and some were beating on drums, but, didn’t see any screaming or altercations or anything at all threatening. (Personally I think the St. Patrick’s Day parade/bar crowd is more dangerous than these people.) The whole thing was over and everyone appears to have dispersed by 4 p.m. with absolutely no public disorder of any kind.

    Seems to me that, outside of major cities like NYC, Boston, etc., the Occupy crowd is mostly young middle class folk looking for an easy outlet for their frustration with the general state of the economy, and not looking to attack anyone personally. However, they do need to be aware that their movement, such as it is, is being coopted elsewhere for more sinsister purposes.

  • I guess the occupation of Springfield didn’t last long Elaine! 🙂 Typical example of Central Illinois Nice. They had their say, made their point, and went home to get ready for Saturday night. We live in a good part of the state!

  • Joe,
    I’m a tax lawyer. The NYT errors were explicated ad nauseum in all manner of serious tax journals. Stop your lies.

  • Mike,

    A layman would not understand the complex differences between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and tax accounting/The IR Code (credits; timing, temporary, permanent differences; deferred tax assets/liabilities; etc.) in a corporation’s financial statements.

    Plus, if it serves the agenda it’s not a lie. I think journalists glory in their omissions of the truth as they tirelessly advance the narrative.

  • All true, T, and fair enough. And laymen are not likely to realize that in general those differences favor revenue collection. GAAP errs on the side of making sure a company does not deceive investors by overstating income, whereas the IRC errs on the side of making sure that a company does not deceive the IRS by understating income. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the general theme. It is true that some industries (oil is the easy example) benefit from being able to deduct expenses they pay faster than what ordinary accounting might allow and faster than other industries can, and this type of benefit is certainly open to criticism. But the criticism more appropriately should focus on horizontal equity (i.e., a comparison with other corporate taxpayers) rather than vertical equity (a comparison based on ability to pay). In the end how much corporate income tax a corporation pays is truly not all that relevant for vertical equity purposes, and its horizontal equity analysis is best limited to comparisons with competitors. The corporate income tax is a puzzling creature. Its economic burden is necessarily a mystery in that it falls on some unknown (and unknowable) admixture of shareholders (through reduced returns, as though they should be reduced any further these days), consumers (through higher prices), and employees (through reduced wages). The distribution of this burden is based on many market variables that are fluid and impossible to assume or plan for in confidence. In other words, it a tax that progressives love notwithstanding the random distribution of its economic burden. Very strange, actually. This is not to say that corporations don’t impose social costs that they should pay for (e.g., the trucking industries effect on road wear and tear), but such costs (particularly when netted against social benefits) bear no relation whatsoever to the corporate tax burden (very high in the US), and should sensibly be borne regardless of profit just like any other cost.
    Finally, it is true that earnings of CEOs of major corporations high by historic standards. Much has been written about this, and there are many causes including (i) the structure and practices of corporate comp committees and (ii) the move a couple decades ago to tie comp more to stock performance. But as generous as such payments can be, their impact on a company’s bottm line is typically not all that material. I do think that criticism of CEO pay may have some merit, but that is a discussion for another day.

  • Mike, what does a tax lawyer do, tax lawyers? I don’t like being called a liar. As a lawyer, the irony is rich, indeed. (apologies to Don McClarey, the only lawyer I know capable of uttering truths now and then.)

  • Joe,
    I never called you a lawyer. I asked you to stop repeating lies.
    To answer you question, I work very hard to ensure that my clients do not pay any more tax than they are legally obligated to. My clients are large corporations. I am proud of my work. My clients behave honorably, and I have never known them to utter or repeat lies. Lawyers are like anyone else, unfortunately, some honorable and some not. But the lawyers I work with I very honorable. You seem to think that corporations are duty bound to pay whatever you think is just — not what the law requires. Such arrogance is unbecoming.

  • GE and taxes? Let’s set the record straight:

    http://www.propublica.org/article/5-ways-ge-plays-the-tax-game

    So much for paying the 35% corporate rate.

  • Joe,
    GE works hard to save costs at every level, thereby benefiting consumers and investors, and preserving jobs. Tax expenses are no exception. Unless you can show that they are doing something illegal or immoral then what is the point of your innuendo?

  • Mike…”GE works hard …” employing more than 1,000 lawyers whose sole job is to find ways to avoid tax liability… GE works hard to cut its U.S. payroll by thousands while its hypocritical CEO boss sits on a job-creation council … GE works hard to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, filling its ever-growing till by billions with Pentagon money… GE works hard to lobby Congress for every tax break, loophole and under-the-table, deal-cutting maneuver to make sure the defense contracts never end..ad nauseum

  • GE works hard to manufacture weapons of mass destruction,

    Goodness gracious, you mean they manufacture weapons? Why has no one reported them to the UN?

    And still nothing illegal or immoral in any of the litany reported by Joe. But, whatever mean Joe Green can do to obfuscate the main point of the post.

  • Agreed, Paul. It never ceases to amaze me how passionate liberals are about supporting a tax whose economic burden is unknown and arbitrary. I assume it is grounded in the assumption that the burden rests predominantly on the rich, but really that is all it is, an assumption. There is actually very little basis for believing that. The best one can say about it is that it might be true; or not. There is a reason conservatives are so often quick to accuse liberals of forming opinions based more on emotion than reason.

  • Pingback: Occupying Wall street…Way too late | pindanpost
  • Pingback: Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream – heplev

A Liberal Education

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

The ideological orientation of  academia to the political left is an old story.   Certainly such ideological conformity was well established back in my halcyon undergraduate and law school days at the University of Illinois, 1975-1982.  Outside of my ROTC courses, I was guaranteed to be the most outspoken conservative in any class I attended.  In some classes of course, geography for example, politics never came up, but when political issues arose they would almost always be presented with a left of center, sometimes far left of center, viewpoint.  With the same shy, retiring nature that is always on full display on this blog, I always felt compelled to respond, which included, on one memorable occasion, interrupting a class room political rant by one of my education professors at the five minute mark with the comment:  “That is garbage sir!  Sheer garbage!”  The look on the shocked faces of my classmates will remain a cherished memory until my dying day!

Continue reading...

2 Responses to A Liberal Education

Jesse Jackson Jr. Calls for Fascist Dictatorship

Thursday, October 13, AD 2011

Cries of fascism and dictatorship are often overblown.  Not so in the case of Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

Let’s put aside the disgustingly unconstitutional piece of advice for one second, and concentrate on Jackon’s economic plan.  He actually wants to pay the unemployed – to do what exactly? – and at $40,000 per head.  That comes out to $600,000,000,000 – that’s 600 Billion dollars.  And that’s only if we go with the 15 million number for unemployed.  That figure is undoubtedly a low-ball figure of the number of Americans actually unemployed.  In reality we’d most likely have to double that figure and then some.  So Jackson is suggesting that we simply pony up over a trillion dollars a year to guarantee full employment.  And again, what are we employing these people to do?

The more important issue is that Jackson considers mere political opposition to a favored policy to be, in effect, treason.  That’s right, anyone who dares disagree with the Obamamessiah is an active rebel against the United States government.  And, since those people opposing Obama were elected to office – and, by the way, were elected more recently than Obama – isn’t Jackson implying that a majority of the people of the United States are in active rebellion?  Good to know what Jackson thinks of his fellow countrymen.

In the end, Jackson wants to crush out dissent and utilize the machinery of the state to co-opt the marketplace and guarantee certain economic outcomes.  Gee, if only there were a word to describe this kind of desired polity.

But remember, the tea partiers are extremists.

H/t: Creative Minority Report.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Jesse Jackson Jr. Calls for Fascist Dictatorship

  • Does he first need to burn down the Capitol and accuse the banks?

  • His Dad when Reagan was elected said that fascism had come to America. I await with eager anticipation Jesse’s fiery condemnation of his son’s remarks! (Crickets chirping.)

  • People actually elected Jackson? Oh, Illinois. That explains it.

  • “People actually elected Jackson? Oh, Illinois. That explains it.”

    Well, to be more precise, people in the 2nd Illinois Congressional District — which includes portions of the South Side of Chicago and some southern and decidedly less affluent suburbs — elected Jackson.

    Jackson, known among political junkies as Triple J or just Trips, also came perilously close to actually buying the Senate seat that Governor Hairdo attempted to sell a couple of years back. (The mere thought of Trips as the next U.S. Senator was probably all the motivation the federales needed to slap the cuffs on Blago before it could happen.)

  • “I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past. He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

    Jackson Jr. took an oath to “support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Making those comments effectively breaks that oath. He should be impeached.

  • Also, Triple J already has a serious primary challenger lined up — former Congresscritter Debbie Halvorson from the neighboring 11th Congressional District. My guess is that these remarks were more an attempt to rile up his “base” to vote for him than anything else. Instead, he’s practically handed his opponent oodles of campaign commerical material.

Remember Obama Worship?

Thursday, October 13, AD 2011

This Klavan on the Culture is from October 8, 2009.  What a difference two years have made in the fortunes of Mr. Obama, with his reelect number now down to 41%.  However, as a cautionary tale we should never forget the type of adulation received by this hack politician from Chicago during the election campaign of 2008 and the early days of his administration.

From Mark Morford, San Francisco Gate Columnist, on June 8, 2008:

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Remember Obama Worship?

  • The second video “allegedly” all happened one afternoon. They were able to paint up those banners, design & print those t-shirts, and memorize an entire song. All in one afternoon.

    These guys really take us as fools don’t they.

  • If Obama wants to be Jesus, he mst remember this: Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Obama will probably be crucified, but I’m willing to bet he won’t rise again!

  • Well, not in three days, at any rate.

    Didn’t Clinton also suffer some pretty bad poll numbers (maybe not this bad) but managed a comeback? True, Obama’s no Clinton, but you can never misunderestimate the gullibility of the American electorate.

  • There was no evidence, in 2008 or earlier, of Obama’s policy genius.

    In 2011, there is ample evidence of Obama’s policy ineptitudes.

    “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance” Benjamin Franklin

  • At this point in his presidency Clinton was polling at 48%. Not great, but better than Obama. More importantly, the economy was in the midst of a booming recovery. There is no way the economic situation will be as favorable to Obama next year as it was for Clinton.

    Here’s the Gallup poll for all presidents since Ike a year out from their re-election. Obama’s about as close to Carter as he is to Clinton.

  • This from Andrew Malcolm at Investors.com via Instapundit.

    “Somehow, 16% of likely American voters still believe the country is doing swell.

    “Rescue teams are out looking for them right now.

    “Sixteen percent is not much of a political base for President Obama to build a 2012 reelection campaign on. In fact, the right track number is down two more points just since last week and down 16 points since last October.

    “Things could be worse. It could be 14% happy folks as it was back in August when times were so tough for millions of Americans that the president delayed his newest job creation program a month to take an island vacation.

    “The Democrat has 391 days left to convince nearly eight-out-of-ten wrong-track-believing U.S. voters that 9.1% unemployment, nearly zero economic growth and a national debt still ballooning despite all those rancorous negotiations last summer are not as bad as they seem to most sentient beings.”

  • I can’t believe that Kids Choir.

    Pure indoctrination. I wonder of they’re still so ebullient?

  • I pity the kids Don. I bet their parents are real pieces of work.

  • Check out this article by Colleen Carroll Campbell titled “Obama is alienating Catholic voters”:

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/colleen-carroll-campbell/article_364e32fb-45fc-536f-bfc6-f7a703a3b77a.html#ixzz1ai992t8H

    “Given the role Catholics played in Obama’s 2008 victory and their habit of picking presidential winners, you might think that an embattled president with a 40-percent approval rating would be working overtime to solidify his support among this crucial voting bloc. Instead, Obama seems intent on convincing Catholics that their faith in him was unwarranted.

    “While other voters have been disappointed by Obama’s economic failures and arrogant, ham-handed approach to everything from health care reform to the Solyndra scandal, swing-voting Catholics have special reason to feel betrayed. A candidate who won their support by pledging to respect the religiously grounded views of those with whom he disagrees has morphed into a president whose administration relentlessly attacks religious liberty.”

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/colleen-carroll-campbell/article_364e32fb-45fc-536f-bfc6-f7a703a3b77a.html#ixzz1ai992t8H

  • Great article Elaine:

    “We are in a war,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a NARAL Pro-Choice America crowd in Chicago last week.

    Sebelius followed her martial rhetoric with a sarcastic swipe at pro-lifers who fail to see church-funded contraception as a cure-all for America’s astronomical abortion rates. Apparently, the secretary has not read the 2011 Guttmacher Institute report that found a majority of women who abort their babies were using contraception the month they conceived.”

    The most anti-Catholic administration in our nation’s history and, shamefully, there will be plenty of Catholics voting for Obama next year.

  • …shamefully, there will be plenty of Catholics voting for Obama next year.

    Indeed Don. He will lose some of his Catholic voters however. Sadly, it will only be for the lesser reason of a tanked economy rather than for the numerous reasons that should have dissuaded Catholics from voting for him in the first place.

  • Our bishops are letting the clock run out on opportunities to instruct Catholics on how to judge candidates for public office. IMO the time to do this is in the off-years; when the election season gets under way people tend to increasingly filter what they hear in to suit their partisan political interests.

  • “Given the role Catholics played in Obama’s 2008 victory and their habit of picking presidential winners, you might think that an embattled president with a 40-percent approval rating would be working overtime to solidify his support among this crucial voting bloc.

    Catholics who cast a ballot for B.O. fall into three categories: those who do not go to Mass, those who are not paying attention, and those who are content to be used. His deal with those folks remains intact.

  • Gallup shows Obama running behind a generic Republican candidate 46-38. Still a year out, but that is a definite sign that opposition to what Obama has been doing is broad and deep. The electorate is in an ugly mood and I expect it to be uglier a year hence, just a little bit over two weeks from election day 2012.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/gallup-shows-obama-trailing-generic-republican-4638/

  • Yet another sign of the apocalypse for Obama and Dems can be discerned in this Capitol Fax column by Illinois political blogger Rich Miller:

    “…the Democrats could easily be looking at a bloodbath next year, particularly Downstate….

    “Top legislative Democrats are saying this has been the worst candidate recruitment year they’ve seen. They had been counting on a backlash against the Republicans (a la 1995-96) to help recruit good candidates, but instead they’re encountering malaise, indifference, fear and even hostility.

    “The situation may be worse than they realize. My father went door-to-door for Obama in his U.S. Senate race. Obama used to call him “Brother Miller.”

    “Dad loved him.

    “When Obama decided to run for president, Dad attached giant, custom-made “Obama ’08” stickers to both sides of his vintage 1963 Cadillac convertible. He christened it the “Obamallac” and drove all over Iowa to advertise his guy before the 2008 caucuses.

    “I called Dad on Tuesday night and he told me he was watching the Republican presidential debate. I asked him why and he said he’s so bitterly disappointed in Obama that he is looking around for someone else to support.

    “If Obama has lost the Obamallac owner, he’s in gigantic trouble, and so is the rest of the Democratic Party.”

    http://capitolfax.com/2011/10/14/bad-moon-rising/#comments

  • That’s a shocker Elaine, as Rich Miller has always leaned to the Dems. He must be hearing true doom and gloom from his Dem sources. I am in a Republican county, but the apolitical people I talk to are livid about the hike in the state income tax and the unending lousiness of the economy.