Not Just One Reason

Friday, November 4, AD 2011

Growing up, my family had a lot of odd conversations, especially on the rare occasions we watched TV. One of these led to my mom pointing out that a lot of the “strange” things that the Bible told the Jews to do were not just for religious reasons (I think it came out of a TV character using ‘religious’ as a synonym for ‘serves no practical purpose’)—they made very good practical sense, too. Simplest example, pork is horrifically dangerous if you don’t have a fridge and don’t know about invisible dangers.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Not Just One Reason

  • Good reflection there Foxfier. God isn’t stupid, and I don’t think there is any genuine religious tradition that is simply arbitrary or exists for no reason — they all have some logic to them.

    The “practicality” of the Mosaic Law can be glimpsed in other aspects. For example, the 40 days of ritual uncleanness, followed by purification, that women underwent after giving birth correspond almost exactly to the standard 6 week recovery period after childbirth today. Being “unclean”, though it sounds bad, meant women were excused from most of their ordinary household duties like cooking and cleaning (since anything they touched became unclean) and it also allowed them time to bond with their babies.

    Also, the Law of Niddah, which prohibited sexual contact (or any contact at all) between a woman and her husband during her menstrual period and for 7 days afterward, meant that the period of abstinence would usually end right around the time the wife was most fertile — sort of a reverse rhythm method.

    Then there are the economic laws like the “sabbatical” year every 7 years when the land was allowed to “rest” (to prevent exhaustion of the soil) and the “jubilee” year every 50 years when debts were canceled, slaves freed, and lands that had been sold to pay debts were returned to the original owners. Whether this was ever actually carried out exactly as prescribed in Scripture is a bit doubtful, but it did seem to have some logic to it… it would allow everyone an economic “do over” at least once in their lifetimes and prevent the rich from perpetually getting richer while the poor sink into a permanent underclass.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION |

Worst Governor in the Country

Friday, November 4, AD 2011



In a crowded field, Pat Quinn, Democrat Governor of Illinois, can now officially be proclaimed the worst governor in the United States.

He has been vying for the title ever since he took over from impeached and removed Governor Blagojevich, currently bound for a long stay in federal prison.  Since taking over from his felon predecessor, he has the following accomplishments to his discredit:

In a midnight session of  the lame duck legislature in January of this year he increased, in the midst of the worst economic slump since World War II, Illinois personal income taxes by 67-75%, and, as a result, the misgoverned state of Illinois became a national laughingstock.

He rammed through civil unions last year in December in another action of the lame duck legislature.

Quinn  got elected last year by a razor thin margin  largely by under the radar last minute internet ads posted by Personal PAC, a pro-abort lobbying group, headed by a Terry Cosgrove. As payback Quinn appointed Cosgrove to a $46,000 a year job on the Human Rights Commission.  Lake County Right to Life has good coverage on this story which may be read here.  Regular Guy Paul has been on top of the story at his blog here.

Now I happen to know Cosgrove from the days back in the Seventies when we were both attending the U of I. He is a lapsed Catholic, now a militant atheist, homosexual activist and fanatical pro-abort. He was head of the local campus pro-aborts and I was one of the founders of L.I.F.E. (Life Is For Everyone), the campus pro-life group. One time I saw Cosgrove at Mass circa 1980 at the Newman Chapel, at Saint John’s. Puzzled why he was there, after Mass I found out why. At the pamphlet rack in the back I saw that he had stuffed pro-abort obscene anti-Catholic pamphlets. I disposed of them. He also said in one memorable public forum that he carried a gun to defend himself against “militant anti-choicers”, as he phrased pro-lifers.  Quinn appointed him to the Illinois Human Rights Commission in April of this year. That a bigot like Cosgrove now has a seat on the Human Rights Commission in Illinois has a nice Orwellian touch.

Now Quinn has outdone himself and seized the title of worst governor.  As further payback to Cosgrove and his pro-abort pressure group, Quinn is going to attend the annual fund raising dinner for Personal Pac and present an award.  When challenged on this by every Catholic bishop in the State, and Cardinal George,  the ostensibly Catholic Quinn responded that giving the award was the “Christian thing to do.”  (Quinn obviously must have a unique gloss on the statement of Christ, “Suffer the little children…”.)

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Worst Governor in the Country

  • A great analysis, Don, and you recognized the payback aspect of the awards ceremony which wasn’t mentioned by the bishops.

    Interestingly enough, when Rich Miller of Capitol Fax first got on this story Wednesday he called the Catholic Conference of Illinois for clarification regarding whether or not Quinn was being barred from Communion (Miller is not Catholic). The reply he got was that the bishops were not banning him, but “an individual priest can refuse Quinn Communion.” If that’s the case then maybe the bishops are giving the green light to priests to do just that, or at least letting it be known that they will not object if some priest chooses to do so.

  • Thank you Elaine, and your observation about the comment about priests is correct. However, the bishops should not lay this on the shoulders of a priest to decide. Quinn is an ongoing public scandal of epic proportions in the State, not some petty miscreant who can be best left to his local parish priest.

  • “In a crowded field, Pat Quinn, Democrat Governor of Illinois, can now officially be proclaimed the worst governor in the United States.”

    I don’t know about that. He’s got some tough competition from Governor Andy Cuomo. The Bishops must publicly excommunicate politicians like Quinn and Cuomo. The precedence of how St. Paul dealt with Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20 rings loudly and clearly.

  • Given the rogues gallery of Illinois governors, Don, does any of this surprise you?

  • BTW, Don, there are a lot of unionistas north of you border who would love to trade Walker for Quinn.

  • They are more than welcome to him Joe! Almost all Illinois politicians since Abraham Lincoln have managed to live down to my expectations, but Quinn is working overtime to be even worse than I would have imagined before he was raised from gadfly to governor.

  • I wonder if the bishops of Illinois would actually stand behind any priests that denied
    Holy Communion to the Governor. If the press turned too ugly, it would be awfully
    tempting for them to leave the priest twisting in the wind. If they truly were committed
    to standing behind their men, wouldn’t they say so publicly?

    I’m glad that all of the bishops of the state have come together to protest the Governor’s
    actions. However, I cannot help but think that this protest is just the least bothersome
    thing the bishops can do and still show their faces in public. Actually addressing the
    continuing public scandal of pro-abortion CINO politicians seems to be more of an
    inconvenience than the bishops of this country are willing to take on.

    It amazes me that in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade the bishops have yet to come up
    with a coherent, well-articulated and unified response to the ongoing scandal of these
    cynical, pro-abortion CINO politicians. I can only conclude that it is because it is not
    really a priority for them.

  • The oddity is that uneducated Catholic teenage girls in Rio and Bogota and Uganda who have abortions are excommunicated latae sentenciae and don’t know it. And a pro gay, pro abortion educated Catholic pol in an enabling position can’t get excommunicated by Pope or Bishops….no matter how hard he tries. Could it be time for Benedict to meet with a management consultancy
    firm? I often think that there is a standing memo in the Vatican for Popes to punish no one….because such active ruling would make the mass movements of Protestants back to the Church less likely (e.g. Anclicans). if so, it’s a mistake ala Paul’s example noted by Paul above.

  • “… a pro gay, pro abortion educated Catholic pol in an enabling position can’t get excommunicated by Pope or Bishops….no matter how hard he tries… I often think that there is a standing memo in the Vatican for Popes to punish no one….”

    Punish no one … except the orthodox faithful when they get too uppity about calling Bishops on the carpet for failing to enforce the teachings of the Church. Then they get called names by our bishops and are told that they are “divisive” or “Judgmental” or “uncharitable” or “sinful” and are accused of doing “irreparable damage to the communion of the Church”. Or they get railroaded off of Catholic radio programs.

    As I once wrote in the context of the bishops’ backlash against faithful Catholics in the wake (no pun intended) of the Ted Kennedy funeral/canonization:

    I wonder if our shepherds REALLY believe about abortion what they proclaim to be the Church’s teaching on the matter. I know that pro-lifers have taken them at their word, and have sacrificed their time, treasure, talent, and reputations – and even, in some cases, voting against our own economic best interests – to work on behalf of the unborn.

    And, for that, pro-lifers have been rewarded with scorn. I expect as much from the mainstream media, from the Democrat Party, and even from the Republican Party, which takes the pro-life movement for granted, pretty much only paying attention to our concerns during election years.

    But from our Bishops? Again, why do we even bother?

  • Quinn has a wopping 30% approval rating according to a recent poll:

    Way to go every voter in the aptly named Sucker State who saddled us with this jackass for the next three years!

  • I don’t believe it is the Pope’s job to micromanage one billion Catholics and thousands
    of bishops. The scandal of the bishops’ avoidance of concrete action regarding these
    pro-abortion CINO politicians is no one’s fault but the bishops’. They are squandering
    their moral authority and credibility by refusing to take any sort of meaningful action.

    As Mr. McClarey said in his post above, Gov. Quinn is not in the least inconvenienced by
    this latest episcopal tut-tutting. In fact, it enhances his credentials in the rabidly pro-
    abortion Democrat party. If it were determined that Gov. Quinn should be barred the
    Sacraments until he repents and does penance, at least the faithful would be spared
    his scandal, the pro-life laity would be encouraged, and the bishops would be seen to
    take their obligations as shepherds seriously and the erosion of their credibility would

  • Indeed Clinton. Cut him off from the sacraments and publicly state that he is no longer a Catholic in good standing. The Church has condemned abortion since the time of Christ. This type of lackadaisical attitude is further evidence that what has traditionally been the Church Militant is now the Church Mushy. Additionally the Church has a duty to sinners, even to one as far gone as Quinn. The purpose of excommunication has never been to punish, but rather to recognize that someone has cut himself off by his actions from the Bride of Christ. Who knows, perhaps in Quinn’s case it might even cause him to repent. Certainly excommunication has had that impact on sinners even worse that Quinn.

  • “If it were determined that Gov. Quinn should be barred the Sacraments until he repents and does penance, at least the faithful would be spared his scandal, the pro-life laity would be encouraged, and the bishops would be seen to take their obligations as shepherds seriously and the erosion of their credibility would cease.”

    That’s the whole point. There is so much Scriptural precedence for this. Ananias and Sapphira were dropped dead on the spot in Acts 5:1-11. The man living with his father’s wife in 1st Corinthians 5 was kicked out till he repented in 2nd Corinthians 2:5-11. Hymenaeus and Alexander were turned over to Satan in 1st Timothy 1:19-20 to be taught not to blaspheme. And Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23 was told that she’d be put on a sick bed and her children killed for teaching people at the Church in Thyatira to commit adultery and eat meat sacrificed to idols.

    But most of today’s bishops in these United States don’t really BELIEVE in the power of God, so they don’t really take Scripture seriously (nor for that matter the 2000 years of Tradition in the Church or the teaching of the Magisterium unless it’s something about promoting social justice). There are exceptions here and there. But until the Bishops as a whole throw Andy Cuomo, Patrick Quinn, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Kathleen Sebelius and all the rest out of the Church publicly, all their protestations are smoke in the wind which dissipates quickly as things return to “normal.” And furthermore, if the bishops do NOT kick these apostates out, then God will prune His Church exactly as described in Romans 11. The branches that don’t produce fruit will be cut off to make way for those who do. God’s will will be done no matter what, either with the bishops cooperating with God’s justice or with the bishops finding themselves pruned off because they wouldn’t cooperate God’s justice. And yes, God’s justice is His love – justice had to be dumped on the head of that man in the Church at Corinth before he stopped his sexual perversion and that was LOVE. Being nice ain’t love at all (“oh, you must really love your Dad if you’re taking care of his wife that way! – St. Paul had a virtual conniption fit about that excuse); it’s only confirming the person in sin so that his slide into hell can be all greased up. Bishops who do that would do well to remember Ezekiel 34:1-10.

    Lord deliver us from liberal weak-kneed, yellow bellied, cowardly, effeminate clerics!

  • Clinton
    If a Pope has time to write three scholarly books in 6 years, I think he has time to do a tad bit of micro managing on this issue after decades of Bishop indecision on pols…an issue, abortion, which is now clearly infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae so as to pass muster in Church courts under canon 749-3. Few moral issues actually have that clearly manifest infallibilty.
    Canon law (331) talks of his power thus:
    “By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”

    Is it easy emotionally to use that power in a phone call to a Bishop and then ask him to call you back in two weeks with what he did on the problem? I’ll bet not. I wish he’d call the Jesuit head about Georgetown and tell them to stop the lavender graduations for the glbt group there.
    But as I say…I wonder if they think Protestants will never return if Popes use that power…but will return if Popes never micro manage. If so, it’s a mistake.

  • Bill,

    How much would the Pope know about the details of these issues? Otherwise, I am inclined to agree with you. I find it fascinating and dismay that – for example – hundred of Irish clerics can defy the Church over married priesthood, contraceptives, etc. This is happening most everywhere because the problem was never nipped in the bud when it first appeared.

  • Paul
    I’m sure at the CDF Benedict got thousands of letters on the pro choice pols in the US for years ever since Cuomo and Ferraro. On other moral issues, there is not the crystal clear infallibility that abortion now has.
    Read canon 749-3. Abortion and euthanasia now pass that manifest clarity test.

  • Mr. Primavera, you list several examples of corrections administered in scripture. I
    would also like to mention the chastisement St. Ambrose administered to a political
    figure of his day. Around 390 AD there was an uprising in a city in Thessalonica.
    Several Roman officers were killed and the Christian emperor Theodosius ordered
    reprisals. During a festival held in the city Roman soldiers sealed the exits of the
    amphitheater and slaughtered the 7000 men, women, and children inside.

    News of the massacre soon reached Milan, St. Ambrose’s diocese and the current
    residence of the emperor. When the emperor attempted to enter the cathedral to
    attend Mass, St. Ambrose barred him at the door and forbade him to enter any
    church until he both repented taking innocent lives and did public penance. Mind
    you, St. Ambrose was facing down a powerful man who had killed 7000 people just
    to make a point. As it was, the emperor did repent and did his penance.

    About 1300 years after St. Ambrose’s confrontation with the emperor, Peter Paul
    Reubens depicted the scene in a magnificent painting that now hangs in Britain’s
    National Gallery. Somehow I doubt that 1300 years hence any artists will be
    commemorating our bishops’ feeble handwringing in response to the scandal of
    all these cynical pro-abortion CINO politicians we’re saddled with.

  • “The conflict between David and Nathan, and other such examples in the Bible, placed into the Western mind the concept of a body outside the State always judging the actions of the State. This is an all-important development for Western notions of freedom. The Greek democracies and republics eventually collapsed into rule by divinized Hellenic monarchs after the death of Alexander. Those republics and democracies that were not directly ruled were rendered impotent and subject to constant threat of conquest by the sprawling absolute monarchies established by the Diadochi. The Roman Republic suffered the same fate, collapsing during the chaotic century before Christ into the rule by Augustus Caesar and his successors which eventually developed into absolute rule by divinized God-Emperors.

    With the advent of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, this changed. Emperors were now held to account for their actions, as Theodosius was after the massacre of Thessalonica by Saint Ambrose. The State could no longer be held to be all-powerful, even in theory. The Church stood as a constant reminder to rulers that they had to answer to God for the actions, and the Church often served as a rallying point against a ruler who was becoming a tyrant. It is interesting that the doctrine of the divine right of kings, came about only after the Reformation, when Luther made his new church an arm of the state in order to secure a break with Rome. In the Middle Ages, the idea that the King was head of the Church as well as the State, would have been regarded as blatant heresy. The coronation oaths that Kings took in the Middle Ages obliged them to protect the rights of the Church, and it was the Church that administered the sacred chrism necessary for the coronation ceremony.”

    “During a crisis within the Roman Empire, Emperor Theodosius I slaughtered 7,000 of his own citizens in 390 AD. Shortly after this massacre Emperor Theodosius arrived in Milan where Saint Ambrose resided as bishop. Upon hearing of the emperors arrival Saint Ambrose refused to meet nor offer the Holy Sacrifice to him. Instead he castigated the emperor and demanded he repent for his sins.

    Emperor Theodosius quickly obeyed [emphasis mine],

    “and, being laid hold of by the discipline of the Church, did penance in such a way that the sight of his imperial loftiness prostrated made the people who were interceding for him weep more than the consciousness of offence had made them fear it when enraged”. “Stripping himself of every emblem of royalty”, says Ambrose in his funeral oration, “he publicly in church bewailed his sin. That public penance, which private individuals shrink from, an Emperor was not ashamed to perform; nor was there afterwards a day on which he did not grieve for his mistake.”[1]

    Ted Kennedy was the leading proponent of abortion on demand.

    Millions of innocent humans died due to the policies that Ted Kennedy championed.

    Ted Kennedy passed away without repenting nor showing remorse for his direct actions in the death of millions.

    Instead of performing his duty as Archbishop of Boston and teaching Ted Kennedy the errors of his ways, Cardinal O’Malley does absolutely nothing and then presides at his funeral.

    Saint Ambrose, ora pro nobis!”

  • Well said, Mac!

    Bell, book, and candle: the rite of excommunication concluded with the offer to the reprobate to burst the fetters of the demon, to do penance and to satisfy the (Teachings of the) Church so as to return to a state of grace.

    The theological virtues are Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest of these is Love. I think St. Paul.

    Is it Charity to do nothing as a sinner hurdles headlong down the express lanes of the road to perdition?

  • I wonder what a man like this thinks when he looks at the Body of our Lord in Communion. Does he think it is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus contained in a common piece of bread. If this is true, why is it a stretch for him to believe a unique human being is contained in any stage after conception in the womb of it’s mother?

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Thank you, Donald and Clinton. I would remind Clinton, however, that if it weren’t for the ascendency of godless liberalism, there would be no CINO’s (Conservatives in Name Only).

    Sancte Ambrosie, Ora pro nobis!

  • Opps, it occurred to me as I was just cleaning the bathroom (how appropriate!) that CINO is likely an acronym for “Catholic In name Only” or “Christian In Name Only” vice “Conservative In Name Only”. I apologize for the error (CINOs exist with regard to political persuasion) and will now return to cleaning the toilet bowl and kitter litter as I contemplate the acronym “CINO.”


  • Mr. Primavera, the fault is all mine. Looking back at my comment, I realize that I
    never made it clear that my use of the CINO acronym stood for “Catholic in Name
    Only”. In that context, cat boxes and toilet bowls are most appropriate.

  • For those of you not familiar with recent Illinois political history, Quinn is regarded by many as a prime example of someone who has become exactly the kind of person he used to despise.

    Early in his career he was often described as a populist “gadfly”. In the late 70s, after legislators outraged the public by voting themselves a substantial pay raise, Quinn led a successful drive to reduce the number of Illinois House members by 1/3. He also helped establish a consumer watchdog body called the Citizens Utility Board. He was also known for NOT living high off the hog as many politicians do — he drives older vehicles, stays in Super 8 motels on his own dime when traveling, etc.

    Today, however, he’s wiped out almost all of the populist/reformer cred he once had. One of the more interesting “Questions of the Day” that Rich Miller sometimes posts on his blog is “What would the young Pat Quinn say if he met his current self?” If he’s lapsed that far from his former political ideals it should come as no surprise that he’s lapsed even farther from the ideals of his faith, such as it is.

  • Don

    A prediction please, what will come first:

    The state of Illinois will have honest politicians we can be proud of?

    The Cubs will become a consistent championship team?

    A cow will jump over the moon?

    The Second Coming?


    Even by Democratic Party standards Quinn has always been a gadfly. A popular gadfly which is why he ended up in the do nothing job of Lieutenant Governor. Perhaps an honest one he actually believes the democratic parry line which I suspect he thinks has more truth than the Church. A real crook might realize when he hit the point of diminishing personal financial returns, Quinn will just keep on pushing. He has failed to live up to even my low expectations.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Why is it that so many expect our bishops to grow backbones and stand up to the current corrupt world? If you read that the USCCB [through its bureaucrats] has taken a position, you will know from experience that the bishops have passed the buck. The USCCB has no authority. It is each bishop in his diocese who has authority. It seems that they are horrified at this thought, and would rather spend their time abusing the sheep who complain.
    Alas that they are so little believers in Our Lord that they believe not what awaits those who neglect their sheep.

  • Hank, my wise guy reaction would be to bet on the cow! However, I do have some admiration for Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

  • Pingback: Illinois is Economic Road-Kill | The American Catholic
  • Why do Catholics in Illinois continue to vote for politicians who espouse the liberal/progressive (anti-Catholic teaching) social agenda? Maybe it is a matter of leadership. Read this article.

  • We need greater catechesis among our young people.

  • “Why do Catholics in Illinois continue to vote for politicians who espouse the liberal/progressive (anti-Catholic teaching) social agenda? ”

    It would be more accurate to say “Why do Catholics IN CHICAGO AND THE SUBURBS continue to vote for politicians…” Quinn didn’t get all that many Catholic votes, or all that many votes period, outside of the Chicago metro area. He lost in 98 of Illinois’ 102 counties — but the 3 that he won included Cook County, which due to its population, trumps almost all the others. The same problem is evident in other states such as New York and California that are dominated by 1 or 2 major cities.

  • I’d like to refer everyone to Dr. Edward Peters’ column on the issue of the bishops’
    response to Gov. Quinn and politicians of his ilk. The link Canon Law by Dr. Ed
    can be found to the right, just below The American Catholic’s
    archives. Dr. Peters, of course, is an expert on canon law and was recently invited
    to advise the Apostolic Signatura, one of only six such invitees and the only layman
    so invited. I’d heed what he has to say on the matter.

  • Quinn didn’t get all that many Catholic votes, or all that many votes period, outside of the Chicago metro area. He lost in 98 of Illinois’ 102 counties — but the 3 that he won included Cook County, which due to its population, trumps almost all the others.

    I think you are generally right about that. Illinois shares with New York, Massachusetts, and several other states the unfortunate property of being assemblages of incongruous components with some functioning as tributaries to the main.

    Quinn is regarded by many as a prime example of someone who has become exactly the kind of person he used to despise.

    Funny about George Ryan, too. He was a reasonably capable businessman from Downstate Illinois and ended up puking money into the school systems, embarking on public works bonanzas, and running a one-man crime wave. He even corrupted his daughters in the process.

  • Art, Ryan was always corrupt. He comes from Kankakee County which is adjacent to Livingston County where I live, and everyone around here knew that Ryan was on the take long before he became Governor. That is why when he ran I voted for Glen Poshard, his pro-life Democrat opponent. Illinois could have been saved a lot of grief if Poshard had managed to beat Ryan in 98.

  • The people deserve the government they get. And boy oh boy, with the likes of Quinn in Illinois, Cuomo in NY, Perdue in NC, Brown in CA, etc., we are going to get what we deserve.


    Pro dolorosa Eius passione, miserere nobis et totius mundi!

Shape Shifter

Thursday, November 3, AD 2011

Just so we’re clear, if this guy wins the Republican nomination, I walk:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

People can change their minds on an issue, and if Mitt Romney has had a genuine change of heart on abortion, then that’s great.  But how can anyone possibly trust this man?  He’s a chameleon who changes his tune to suit his audience.

On the other hand, though Rick Santorum is not my first choice at the moment, he’s the only candidate who puts social issues first on his website.  He’s by far the most passionate defender of the unborn we have in this race, if not the country.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Shape Shifter

  • Romney’s primary objective is be get elected and reelected. At least in his first term, he should be reliably conservative. Dump him in 2016 if you’re still not convinced.

  • Rather than see Obama re-elected I would vote for the Weather-Vane although it would make me physically ill to do so. My distrust for Romney is immense and any man who can flip-flop as easily and as regularly as he does deserves not an iota of trust from any voter. If it comes down to Romney and one conservative in the primaries, Romney loses, which explains the rise of Herman Cain. Now as Herman Cain begins the crash and burn phase of his campaign, it is a golden opportunity for some other conservative to make his move. I think Rick Perry has been counted out far too soon. We shall see. The GOP establishment gravely underestimates the opposition to Romney among the Republican base. Republicans had to hold their noses with McCain in 2008 and McCain is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan in comparison to the Weather-Vane.

  • If it comes down to Romney and one conservative in the primaries, Romney loses,

    I’d go a step further and suggest that he couldn’t survive there being two viable candidates, at least when you work out the numbers. He needs a third candidate (aside from Ron Paul) to be polling in at least the 10 percent range.

  • Windsock Romney’s core political conviction is that he should hold elective office. He’ll never waver on that.

    In the last few days, I’ve actually found myself taking another look at Gingrich. For all of his manifold flaws, he has knowledge of the issues and can articulate his viewpoint in something other than gimmicky soundbites.

    What a field, what a field.

  • Windsock Romney’s core political conviction is that he should hold elective office.

    And that’s what I do not get (and did not get about George Bush – pere, either). He is a man of genuine accomplishment in other endeavours, he has ample skills at organization and fund-raising, and he is not such a fool that he cannot think through for what he actually stands. Why is he abasing himself?

  • Paul Z. wrote, “…if this guy [i.e., Romney] wins the Republican nomination, I walk…”

    Does that mean, Paul Z., that in a race between the Obamanation of Desolation and Mr. Weather Vane (as Donald so aptly describes him), you will vote for the Obamanation?

    Like Donald M., I will hold my nose and vote for Mr. Weather Vane, then promptly vomit afterwards.

  • I would light my eyeballs on fire before voting for Obama. No, I’d probably just sit out the election. Considering I live in Maryland, it is of little consequence who I vote for I suppose. But with any other candidate I’d at least be motivated to volunteer, particularly in the bordering states of PA and VA. If it’s Romney, I’m not lifting a finger to help the man or the party.

  • Because I live in Louisiana, I have the luxury of being able to vote for whomever I choose without helping Obama. So, I can say that if Romney gets the nomination, the Republicans won’t be getting my vote.

    I’d love to love Santorum; but, I’m not sure he can win a national election. Heck, he didn’t even win his last campaign in Pennsylvania. I’m taking a much harder look at Gingrich right now.

  • If God had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates…

    Yeah, I too am increasingly disgusted with the way this field (never good) has been shaping up. Though living in Ohio now, I’m not sure I’d actually sit out and refuse to vote for Romney if he’s the candidate against Obama. I’d have to think hard about it, though. With Obama in there, at least the GOP is clear on who the enemy is. With Romney in the White House, the congressional GOP might actually allow a more left-ward leaning set of policies to be implemented than would be the case under Obama.

  • Despite my negative tone, as I’ve said elsewhere, I actually like several of the candidates – not just tolerate them. I’m perfectly fine with Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich. Sure, they’re all flawed, but then again you can’t really expect perfection from your candidates.

    In a way it might be good to elect someone that we’re not all praising as the next political Messiah. When we go overboard with a politician we can only wind up being disappointed in the end. In other words, here’s hoping we don’t let perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

  • With Romney in the White House, the congressional GOP might actually allow a more left-ward leaning set of policies to be implemented than would be the case under Obama.

    To demonstrate your point, would a GOP Congress have passed “No Child Left Behind” with a Democrat in the White House? Probably not.

  • Rubio, anyone?

  • Nope, I’ll not vote for Romney. Someone better set the Republican National Committee straight on this. Romney runs, we all lose. Yes, I would vote Santorum — and you can tell the RNC that, too.

  • Yeah, I too am increasingly disgusted with the way this field (never good) has been shaping up.

    I have a sinking feeling that the major problem is that (collectively) we ain’t the people we used to be.

  • One warning about the “I’ll walk” sentiment: if followed too strictly, it guarantees you will have no political party to speak of.

    Social liberals took over the Democrats in part because too many good people followed the “I’ll walk” sentiment, rather than staying and fighting.

    What if they sabotage the GOP too, relying on their sabotage to boost their enemies’ principled exodus?

    I’m getting the sense that the rich Republicans who backed SSM in New York will be allying with gay groups’ agents to do dirty deeds at the Republican National Convention in 2012.

    I advise Republican Catholics to find out how their state party appoints delegates and to make sure many reliable allies are among their delegation. Organize now, or die in defeat later.

  • I will not vote for Romney UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. NEVER.

    I live in Ohio – a swing state. If I knew with absolute certainty that my vote would be the difference in the election, I STILL would not vote for Romney.

    Of course, I’d never vote for Obama either. I don’t vote for pro-aborts. And that includes Romney.

  • Refusing to vote for Romney doesn’t mean we won’t vote in 2012. I want to see Obama pack his things but we may have to settle for the US Congress and a bunch of state governments.

  • You optimists are assuming that there will be anything left in November 2012.

  • What’s weird to me is how, time and again, parties manage to nominate candidates that nobody wants. That is mysterious to me and I start suspecting that it’s due to some sort of mysterious feature of statistics or math. It’s counter-intuitive that a system that is allegedly about majority rule keeps picking candidates for whom no majority seems to exist and which everybody I know doesn’t want. It reminds of the mysteries of fluid dynamics, where leaves mysteriously float upstream due to hidden eddies. Nobody wanted Dole, yet somehow, he was nominated anyway. Bush seemed to get nominated with shrug. McCain was also somebody nobody really seemed to want. And now Romney. I don’t know of living soul who wants him, and yet somehow everybody is glumly resigned to the fact that, despite nobody wanting him, his party are still inevitably going to pick him anyway. It makes me wonder, in what sense is all this democratic. Very strange to me.

  • “It makes me wonder, in what sense is all this democratic.” That’s the exact problem. It IS democratic. 1st Samuel chapter 8 rings loudly and clearly. The “peepul” get the government it deserves, and until we repent of our baby-murdering, our homosexual perversions, our adultery, our fornication, and our idolary, we can expect nothing but leaders who at best are Weather Vanes. When the “peepul” have lost the principles of morality and virtue, can we expect anything other than that of their leaders?

  • The worst features of our current society have not been caused by elections Paul. Abortion on demand, the rise in acceptance of homosexuality, etc, have been fostered by elites wearing the black robes of judges, seated in academia, at the helm of the media and making barely disguised propaganda in Hollywood. If the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box over the past several decades had not been thrwarted by said elites, our society would be far better off.

  • What’s weird to me is how, time and again, parties manage to nominate candidates that nobody wants.

    Do you get the insurance agents you want?

    People enter and are recruited into the political profession like other professions. Who you get is derived from who is already there and what sort of screens and hurdles are present. Public opinion is a matrix in which these fellows operate, influencing their behavior in some measure and winnowing a few who are beyond the pale. Other elements of the matrix also winnow people, for good or ill. I do not think public opinion has much effect on the supply-side, and the supply-side is where your problem is. The general calibre of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie is a problem, and the degree of regard ambient among them for public office.

  • Simply running in opposition to Obama is not enough to get my vote. I did not vote for any presidential candidate in ’08 and I’m prepared to sitout ’12 if I have to. Romney is unacceptable (for my own reasons) and I am not yet certain who is acceptable.

  • Same situation as many – in a state which will go Republican regardless of who is the candidate, so my vote really won’t matter. Voted QTP (Quixotic Third Party) last time, other than local races. Looks like it may happen again, or maybe I’ll have some Tea.

  • “That is mysterious to me and I start suspecting that it’s due to some sort of mysterious feature of statistics or math.”

    Mark – It’s called Arrow’s Paradox.

  • Most likely I would simply not vote over voting third party. Last time around, as bad as the McCain choice was, the third party options consisted mainly of kooks.

    G-Veg’s comment echoes my feelings fairly well.

    Pinky gets to the heart of the matter with Arrow’s Paradox, explained here if you’re looking for a link. I would add that conservatives tend to shoot themselves in the foot each election cycle. I don’t have time to go into detail, but we can be our own worst enemy.

    Somewhat tangentially, I’d like to address one thing that keeps popping up. I have now seen a couple of pieces written about how Romney was the conservative darling in 2008. That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Like many, I saw him as the best of a very bad lot and meekly threw my support to him when Thompson dropped out. Few energetically supported him, and now that there are much better conservative alternatives in the race this time conservatives want nothing to do with him (for the most part).

  • Any support that Romney got from conservatives in 2008 was almost entirely due to a deep antipathy to McCain and a well-founded conviction that McCain was entirely intent on being a good loser in the Fall rather than putting up the type of fight needed to beat Obama. McCain seemed so pathetically eager in the Fall to suspend his campaign for the “good of the country” which I believe he did twice ostensibly due to the economic meltdown. The truth is that McCain’s heart wasn’t in the fight, and he seemed to be running for “Miss Congeniality” instead of president.

  • If John McCain spent 1/10 the energy going after Obama the way he went after conservative opponents like Hayworth . . . well he still probably would have lost. But at least he could have gone down swinging.

  • But, sputter/sniffle, “What about the children!?”

    Soaring food/fuel prices inflict the most harm on low-to-moderate income families and their children.

    So, why are brilliant Obama and his geniuses (Bernanke, Geithner) feverishly striving 24/7 to hike food/fuel prices? I suppose it’s another one of them high-level concepts we ignorant, self-supporting yokels just cannot comprehend.

  • At the risk of being flip, Art, regarding your excellent 8:08am comment: garbage in, garbage out?

  • Donald, maybe you are correct when you said that “The worst features of our current society have not been caused by elections Paul.”

    But I have no confidence in the people’s ability to recognize right from wrong after the last election. Maybe I am just a pessimist. 🙁

  • Poor fallible Man Paul! We are blinded by sin and our intellects feebled by our passions. Yet, by the grace of God we can accomplish so much that is good! As Lincoln said at the beginning of the Civil War we have “the better angels of our nature”. We must have courage and resolution to speak the truth boldly. If we do that, and if we mean it, I have no doubt that there is much in our nation that can be amended.

  • The shallow presidential talent pool today reflects the choices of the people who took part in politics 30-40 years ago (and also the choices of people who refused to take part in politics.)

    The only reason we’re fighting those HHS contraception regs on the national level is because 28 states already passed similar regs.

    Look at your local politics. Start your own little party machine. Convince your neighbors, not some guy 2,000 miles away. Learn to win a neighborhood caucus election.

    These great debates about national issues are fun on the internet, but they often distract from where we can have the most impact.

The Way Freedom of Speech Dies

Thursday, November 3, AD 2011


Time magazine, anyone still reading it?, has a truly despicable piece by Bruce Crumley in which he basically says that “they had it coming” after a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was firebombed:


Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive  efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with  petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can  and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic  antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent  responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of  common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and  by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to  have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it  published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The  Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage  hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot.  Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from  French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously  impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your  loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate  response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you  paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody  on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those  charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Way Freedom of Speech Dies

  • About 95% of the responses to the article were negative, some ferociously so. (And the one’s with explatives appear to have been deleted). Most of the remainder were from a social-work type who fancies that Charlie Hebdo is engaging in a form of school ‘bullying’. That is how much rapport a twenty-year employee of Time has with the magazine’s own readership. It is a wonder that these publications have remained commercially viable for as long as they have.

  • Didn’t read the article (refuse to give TIme hits) but let me get this straight – you mock some group for being so thin skinned that they blow you up simply for mocking them, and when they DO blow you up, thus proving your point, you are somehow wrong or to blame?

  • No, c matt, that’s not what he means. What he means is that if you mock Muslims for being so thin skinned that they firebomb you for mocking them, you’re the one to blame when Muslims firebomb you.

    There’s no other group in his rolodex who gets this infantilizing treatment.

    Sure, he’s a weasel here, but he’s simply making explicit what elite opinionmakers (most recently, pop-biblical scholar Bart Ehrman) have long tacitly conceded.

  • Sure, he’s a weasel here,

    He is not a weasel. He is being an obnoxious scold. If he fancied he would persuade anyone, he is seriously inept at the art of rhetoric. The interesting question is:

    1. Is his social circle so monochromatic that he had no conception he was insulting his readers?; or

    2. Did he fancy his readers needed a tongue-lashing from the principal? (And would sit there and take it?).

    You notice something else? He is the Paris bureau chief. Time used to run one piece of explicit commentary. It ran the full length of the very last page and was commonly penned by a contractor (Barbara Ehrenreich, Charles Krauthammer) rather than someone on the masthead.

  • “Is his social circle so monochromatic that he had no conception he was insulting his readers?”

    “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” The late Pauline Kael, long time movie review for the New Yorker, after Nixon smashed McGovern 60-40 in 1972. Never underestimate the thickness of the ideological bubble some of these people live in.

  • Well, the weasely aspect for me is two-fold: one, a brief boilerplate condemnation (“no justification”) in what is clearly a justification for a firebombing. The second is implicit in the faux-broad plea for civility–there’s no way he’d write the same piece if, say, the SSPX had vandalized the magazine’s offices.

    That’s a very interesting catch on the backpage column, moving in-house. I invariably scanned it when I read the magazine, especially for Krauthammer. Maybe it’s part of a workplace PIP now…

  • You’re right. Weasel he is.

  • Woe to those who call evil good.

    Time what?

    Crumley: how appropriate is that?

    Those who trade liberty for safety will lose both.

  • I’m with C Matt. I’m not going to click on that article. Controversy = hits = the appearance of interest.

  • More justice for those so unenlightened as to not cave in to the Religion of Paroxysm: “Muslim terrorists in northeastern Nigeria murdered 63 Christians in bomb and gun attacks at police stations and six Christian different churches.”


Bloopers Happen

Thursday, November 3, AD 2011

Ah yes, Klavan on the culture, in any organization bloopers do tend to happen, a thought that does occur to me whenever I race into my secretary’s office saying I can’t find a file that I need for court in the next half hour, only to have her go into my office and find the file immediately, usually on my desk and usually by where my right hand would have been.  Hmmm, perhaps my secretary of 26 years working with me might have some more colorful descriptive terms to apply to such errors on my party instead of bloopers.  Perhaps, at least on occasion, she might agree with Henry Fonda in this scene from Twelve Angry Men:

Continue reading...

One Response to Bloopers Happen

Minute Sixteen and Counting (Updated)

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011

I wasn’t going to blog anymore about Herman Cain, but I cannot let this go without comment:

Mark Block, chief of staff for the Cain campaign, laid the blame for the leaks about the allegations about Cain squarely at the Perry campaign’s feet in an interview today.

“The actions of the Perry campaign are despicable,” Block told Fox News tonight. “Rick Perry and his campaign owe Herman Cain and his family an apology. Both the Rick Perry campaign andPolitico did the wrong thing by reporting something that wasn’t true from anonymous sources. Like I said, they owe Herman Cain and his family an apology.”

Asked if he had any evidence, Block mentioned the fact that Cain had told Curt Anderson (who now works for Perry) about the accusations during his 2004 senate run. Cain accused Anderson earlier today; Anderson denied that he was.

As with every other aspect of his campaign, Herman Cain has been unable to address this situation in anything resembling a coherent manner.  I could let that pass, but instead of addressing the issue – or even not addressing it – the Cain camp decides to avert attention away from this mess by hurling unsubstantiated claims against one of his Republican rivals.  Could the Perry camp have leaked the information?  It’s certainly possible, but it just as likely could have been the Romney camp.  Or, and here’s a wild guess, someone did a little digging and came across a publicly available story.

Look, I don’t know if there’s anything more to the original story than that it was a misunderstanding.  But Cain is doing himself no favors by reacting as wildly as he is.  First he played the race card.  If he had been a Democrat conservatives would have collectively rolled their eyes, and yet some conservatives, including one that I highly respect, are willing to indulge this fantasy.  And now this.

What’s sickening is not just the man’s basic ineptitude, it’s that he is inspiring the same kind of blind loyalty to a cult of personality that we mock Democrats for with regards to Barack Obama.  And for what?  A candidate who has nothing to offer except a silly campaign slogan that is, for the record, politically unworkable.  A candidate who couldn’t even win a Senate primary in Georgia, of all states.  Ah, but he sounds so authentic.

And therein lies the problem with the conservative movement.  Mitt Romney is the establishment candidate, and we hate the establishment.  So our counter-reaction to the establishment is to rally around the guy who mouths the most platitudes, all the while ignoring the substance.  It’s like watching the Hot Air blog come to life.  The main contributors are a collection of mealy-mouthed wimps who fear the rise of genuinely conservative candidates.  On the other hand, the commenters are a  collection of raving “THIS GOES TO 11!!!!!!!!” “purists” who make the Free Republic look like a haven of logical thought.  It’s something behold, but it’s also a sad reflection on the conservative movement as we seem constantly to have to choose between raving psychosis and stultifying boredom.

What’s even funnier about the Cain dead-enders is envisioning their reaction when he drops out and turns around to endorse Mitt Romney.  But at least we would have beaten the guy who said “heartless” in a debate that one time.  Good job.  Look what happens when the search for purity leads to the nomination of the most impure candidate.

Then again, not everyone is turning a blind eye to Cain’s collapsing campaign.  Even his biggest booster in the blogosphereis starting to sound a little worried.

The fact that Chris Wilson works for a firm that has been associated with Rick Perry’s campaign may confirm widespread suspicions about the origin of Sunday’s Politico story, but as matters now stand, such speculation is irrelevant to whether Cain can survive this. Whatever the motives of the Politico sources, Cain’s fate depends on the specifics of the accusation and the credibility of his accuser.

Then again, knowing the spitefulness that guides certain people, he’ll only ascend in the polls.

Update:  FWIW, here is Eric Erickson’s interview with Perry, in which he firmly denies having anything to do with leaking the story.  Notice that despite the umms and ahhs, it doesn’t take a team of detectives to figure out what Perry is saying.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Minute Sixteen and Counting (Updated)

  • Can’t agree more.

  • That’s exactly how I feel about Republican support for Sarah Palin. Glad to see some more people realize that there’s a nutty wing in the GOP. My hope is that with a moderate Republican in the White House, the GOP nuts will stand down.

  • My hope is that with a moderate Republican in the White House, the GOP nuts will stand down.

    In case my post wasn’t clear on this point, I’d be no more content with Romney than with someone like Cain. Romney and Cain are equally distasteful candidates, though for opposite reasons. And my beef with the more strident conservatives has more to do with tone than substance.

    Unlike many, I do think there are several acceptable, conservative candidates. Let’s go with one of them, please.

  • Paul- What is your beef with Cain? Every time he is mentioned your reaction is similar to the Palin syndrome on the left.

    With conservatives like you, who needs left-wing, government loving statists like RR around?

  • My beef with Cain is that he is a substance free, incompetent candidate who can’t even speak without retracting or clarifying his statement at some future point. I honestly tried giving him a chance and liked him after the first few debates, but at some point you just have to stop giving guys the benefit of the doubt,

    As I said, there are several qualified, competent conservatives running. So my question to you is why the blind loyalty to this man when there are actually good candidates running?

  • “we seem constantly to have to choose between raving psychosis and stultifying boredom.”

    If that’s the case I will vote for boredom every time. The last thing this country needs is another exciting, charismatic candidate who lets all that fame go to his/her head and begins believing and acting as if they really are some kind of anointed political savior.

  • This is a game of attrition at this point. I don’t want Romney to be the last man standing and attacking Cain only serves to achieve this unintended consequence. For a liberal this is understandable but for a conservative it’s appalling.

    I’d love to see a guy like Santorum be President but it ain’t in the cards so you play the hand you are dealt. Do you see any truly viable conservative candidates at this stage in the game?

  • Do you see any truly viable conservative candidates at this stage in the game?

    I’ve said so twice. Either of the Ricks and Newt as well are all far preferable, and I believe that any of them would win in the general. Santorum is a long shot, but I’d much rather support him than Cain.

    By the way, if Cain is destroyed as a candidate I don’t see how that benefits Mitt. He absolutely needs a divided conservative field. If Cain falters, it’s probably down to just Newt and Perry as the anti-Romneys. Romney most likely needs at least three semi-viable conservative opponents, so unless Bachmann resuscitates her campaign he’d be in trouble.

  • By the way judging from this thread, Red State – hardly a bastion of establishment sympathy – is just about done with Cain as well.

  • Well we disagree on our political calculations in such case.

    Newt is a known quantity by the electorate and this electorate is not in the mood for political retreads no matter how high their IQ. Capturing the heart of this nation for a presidential bid is not a likely scenario for him.

    Rick Perry does not appear to be capable of withstanding the rigors of the debates. My greatest fear is that Obama would run rings around him. I don’t think he can win. I could be wrong.

    Regardless, were it Santorum, Perry, Bachmann or Newt currently neck and neck with Romney for pole position conservatives should be rallying around that individual in common cause. Watching Cain receive “friendly fire” from conservatives while he is under attack with what appear to be charges that are lacking any weight or seriousness is unbecoming of conservatives. That’s my concern irrespective of who it happens to be on the receiving end of a political hit-job, Cain or not.

  • “As with every other aspect of his campaign, Herman Cain has been unable to address this situation in anything resembling a coherent manner.”

    Bingo. I find his explanations of all this inherently unbelievable and incoherent. He had to know this was waiting in the wings, and he and his campaign act as if they are stunned ducks when it was revealed. Cain, although he has accomplished much in his life, was totally unprepared for a Presidential run, has attempted to wing the whole thing, and would be an absolute disaster in a general election campaign with the Obama lapdog media tearing into every aspect of his life. Next!

  • Jay Cost sums up the Cain campaign well:

    “What of Herman Cain’s response to this? In a word, it stinks. His campaign couldn’t get its stories straight, the final version does not square very well with the known facts, and worse Team Cain had known about this for more than a week, so it should have been prepared. This isn’t the first time I’d used a word like “stink” to describe the Cain operation, either. His tongue-tied answers on abortion and Guantanamo Bay stunk. His infrastructure in the early states stinks. His fundraising to date has stunk. You get the idea.” Politics isn’t a game, it is hard work and Cain and his staffers have shown no inclination to do the hard work necessary to win the nomination and the general election.

  • Cain doth protest too much. Or, to use another bromide, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
    Face it, Cain is not Able.

  • I think Ann Coulter put it best:

    “It is beyond insane that Herman Cain would have considered running for president if he had the tiniest skeleton in his closet. To be an out-of-the-closet black Republican, you had better be a combination rocket scientist/Baptist preacher.”

    to see AC following the MSM’s lead is sickening. Use to have respect for this blog, not anymore. You’re way to full of yourselves.

  • to see AC following the MSM’s lead is sickening. Use to have respect for this blog, not anymore. You’re way to full of yourselves.

    I wrote this blogpost because Herman Cain accused a fellow candidate of being the leaker without any evidence, and as a way to draw attention away from himself. This has nothing to do with putting credence in the allegations, but rather in the Cain camp’s reaction to the story. You Cainiacs are so invested in this guy that you are willing to overlook every stupid thing he does. So a little less sanctimony and a little more reflection, okay?

  • Oh give it a break Jasper! It is not following the mainstream media lead to conclude that Herman Cain’s campaign consists of winging it and making it up as he goes along. He had to know that the issue of sexual harassment would come up, and he obviously had no plan to deal with it. Rather than heap bile on the messenger your scorn is better directed at an obviously clueless candidate. TAC looks at facts straight on, whether the facts are good, bad or indifferent, and draws opinions and conclusions from the facts. We will not trim our analysis because someone is on “our side”.

  • OK, stipulating that Cain is finished as a viable candidate, Perry is being bashed left and right and none of the other candidates have much traction, who emerges as the front-runner? There’s a leadership void and someone must step up. If Gingrich steps up, it will take the media less than a news cycle to dredge up the since-discredited story about him visiting his cancer-striken ex-wife in the hospital and demanding a divorce.

    Is there anyone out there without baggage?

    Chime in, folks.

  • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the GOP presidential nominating convention borrowed from history and actually showed some drama and uncertainty>
    Before the 1960s, the quadrennial gatherings were actually decision-making forums where the delegates met for four days to promote party unity, establish the party platform, vote for a presidential nominee, and then a vice presidential nominee.
    Many times delegates could not find consensus on candidates or platform. In 1924, Democrats cast 103 ballots before nominating John W. Davis, and in 1860 Stephen Douglas was finally selected after 59 ballots (and two conventions). Deadlock at the 1844 Democratic convention resulted in the selection of “dark horse” candidate James K. Polk, who was chosen on the ninth ballot, even though he wasn’t nominated until the eighth.
    The Democrats were bitterly divided in 1860 over the slavery issue. When delegates adopted Stephen Douglas’ plank that supported nonintervention with slavery in the territories, several delegates from the South bolted from the Charleston, South Carolina, convention in protest.
    While the early conventions often required more than one ballot, there have been only a handful of times in the past five decades that the conventions were nail-biters. In 1952, Adlai Stevenson triumphed over a “Stop Stevenson” campaign and won the nomination in three ballots. Stevenson created even more drama at the 1956 convention, when he declined to appoint a running mate, and the delegates chose Sen. Estes Kefauver over Sen. John F. Kennedy in two ballots. One of the closest races in recent history saw Gerald Ford edge out Ronald Reagan, 1187–1070.
    However, what with pollsters everywhere and the media mainly in charge of steering the dumb masses toward to lesser of several evils, I’m betting that by July/August of 2012 the GOP nominating decision will be preordained and someone will have it locked up.

  • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the GOP presidential nominating convention borrowed from history and actually showed some drama and uncertainty>

    As a political junkie it would be exciting. But if the GOP doesn’t have a nominee by the time the primaries are done, it would be a disaster of epic proportions for the party.

  • Paul, why so? Reagan and Ford fought it out, as did Rockefeller and Goldwater, and the party not only survived but flourished. Of course, I can understand that the media likely would spin it as a sharply divided party, etc., but clear-thinking voters (I hope there are still some left) would look at a vibrant show of honest differences and in the end unity would prevail.

  • Divided conventions Joe usually presage defeat in November for a party in modern times. The last exception to that rule I can think of was when Eisenhower defeated Taft in 1952 at the Republican convention. Sometimes intra-party battles do strengthen a party long term: I certainly think that was true with Goldwater beating Rockefeller and Reagan beating Ford, but four more years of Obama would be too high a price to pay.

  • Joe, the party has been involved in intense bickering for months – just look at this thread! Imagine six extra months of this. Obama would love it.

    Furthermore, that’s six fewer months of fundraising for the eventual nominee, putting him at a tremendous disadvantage.

8 Responses to Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

  • Okay I admit that I never saw The Colbert Report before but that was side splittingly funny. But seriously famale bodied? What insanity….

  • It was funny. What’s even more funny to me is that in an effort to put their best face forward a group of people got together and through silly little hand signs selected this couple to represent them. Based on what I’ve seen I think they made the right choice, but it still doesn’t say much for them whether they be male bodied males, female bodied females, female bodied males, male bodied females, etc.

  • I need the source for those stats. Please post a link. Thanks and God Bless.

  • PBW Einstein: Contact NYC City Hall.

    The source isn’t the regime’s propaganda machine (NYT, Commie News Net, etc.) or Obama’s Ministry of Troof. That’s why God created FOXNEWS.

    Additionally, the above support the violence. The think it distracts we the people from the economic misery your brilliant Obama regime is causing.

    There have been several more sexual assaults (including a hearing-impaired man) and assaults and batteries which the anarchists refuse to report allowing the criminals to persist in plying useful (to Obama) avocations.

    NB: Obama and his hate-filled co-conspirators have not condemned the violence.

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles unite you have nothing to lose!

  • You should add the “autonomous collective” bit from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. When I hear OWS ppl speak, I immediately think of it.

  • Actually, the Tea Party paid for permits for their demonstrations – which entailed paying for a prescribed amount of porta-potties too. I remember how hard they worked to raise the money from a gress roots movement.

    And let’s not forget the open drug sales, unbridled sex, and scabies.

  • Their great contribution to the Commonweal: Zuccotti Lung.

    They’re threatening to close down Wall Street this morning.

    This PM rush hour, they’re promising to clog the Brooklyn Bridge (it’s for sale, ya’ know).

    Way to win friends and influence people.

    There are a couple hundred of them. There are 3,000,000 men and women coming and going to work today in NYC.

    I hope they don’t get too close to my stocks.

    Yesterday, one of them said we were going to see what molotov cocktails do for Macy’s. I work a block away from there. I’m scared.

    “Annoy a liberal: Work, Succeed, Be Happy.” – bumper sticker

Saints Without Names, Souls Without Number

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011

There’s been a great deal of talk lately about the world population hitting 7 Billion — a fake event, in a sense, since it’s impossible to know the exact time this will happen with any precision. Some news articles have given the mistaken impression that this represents the seven billionth person ever, but in fact the number is far, far higher. Our globe has never supported this many people at one time before, but throughout all of human history there have seem something approaching a hundred billion people, stretching from the babies born today to those born to wandering bands of hunter-gatherers over a hundred thousand years ago. A lot of people have lived and died. Just as we know only the tiniest fraction of people alive today, and the true number is not practically comprehensible to the human mind, even more so the number of people who have ever lived.

This pair of feast days, All Saints Day, yesterday, and All Souls Day, today, are not a bad time to think about this from a Christian perspective. In a sense, All Saints is a feast for every soul now enjoying the Beatific Vision, but it’s always seemed to me most especially apt for celebrating all those saints who are unknown to us. There are several thousand saints officially acknowledged by the Church, but this is by no means a comprehensive account of those who are with God in heaven, any more than the people we know of by name make up the full population of the world. We as Catholics believe that those people are definitely in heaven, but we certainly think there are many, many others who are there as well, including, we hope, our loved ones who have died. While the canonized saints provide us with a pantheon of those conspicuous for their holiness, All Saints is an ideal time to recall all those people who remain unknown to us who also enjoy God’s presence. And since few of us are likely to be considered so conspicuous in our holiness as to be recognized throughout the Church, it is in particular, perhaps, the feast of “people like us” now in heaven.

Of course, the difficulty, from a Catholic point of view in saying, “This is the feast of all our loved ones who are now in heaven,” is that even if destined for heaven our loved ones may not be in heaven yet. While as the Church Militant here on earth we look up to the Church Triumphant in heaven, we need also to offer up our prayers and sufferings for the Church Suffering — those cleansing themselves of lingering imperfection and attachment to sin in Purgatory. So it’s helpful that All Souls Day, when we remember in particular all those who may be in Purgatory and in need of our prayers, is paired directly with All Saints Day.

While I find myself hesitant to presume to name people I have known as those we celebrate on All Saints Day, All Souls Day is the day on which we pray for all those we know who have died. Praying that if they do not do so already, they may soon enjoy the Beatific Vision.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Saints Without Names, Souls Without Number

Obama is Brilliant

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011


I think intellectual agility tends to be one of the most overrated human characteristics in the modern world, while character, courage and morality tend to be underrated.  However, during the 2008 campaign we were constantly told by the media that Obama was brilliant and I assume that it is therefore reasonable to ask for evidence of this brilliance.  Anyone?  Feel free to supply evidence of the President’s brilliance in the comments thread to this post.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Obama is Brilliant

  • I’d say brilliance applies when you’re a first-time senator with a high absentee record, no executive experience and able to con a substantial majority of voters to support you. Next to Cain and the rest of the GOP mediocrities, Obama looks like a genius.

  • I think the economic meltdown, the lapdog press and the swooning over Obama by most elites in our society had far more to do with Obama’s victory in 2008 than any brilliance on his part.

    I am no fan of Herman Cain Joe in that I think he has only a superficial knowledge of many of the problems that confront the nation, but compared to Obama prior to his election as President, he has a wealth of successful experience as the head of large enterprises:

  • I don’t think intellectual agility is overrated – I think its over-diagnosed.

  • Disagree cmatt. We put a premium on verbal dexterity and being mentally fast on one’s feet, hence the popularity of the dreadful lawyer melodramas that infest television. Glibness is all well and good, but it tells us very little about the person other than that he is glib.

  • I like the very last comment in that video, “you’re a racist”.

    These guys are the most empty vesselled people I’ve ever met (outside of Hollywood).

  • Donald, why is the woman always the dumb liberal in these videos? There are plenty of smart conservative ladies out there, and we need an avatar representing our opinions too. You must be sexist! 😉

  • Under Obama we no longer have prisoners in Gitmo, there are no us soldiers in Iraq&Afganistan, other countries love the US more, unemployment is under 9%, the economy is booming, everyone (especially the rich) are paying their fair share, businesses are being responsible citizens, the enviroment is cleaner (think BP spill, etc.), his administration is the most transparent and honest ever with no ties to lobbyists. The list goes on and on. Don, why would you ask such a silly question? It is obvious that you are a religious extremist and racist. It is too bad that you are not smart enough to see how brilliant President Obama is. Maybe when you “grow” you will be able to.

  • “Donald, why is the woman always the dumb liberal in these videos? There are plenty of smart conservative ladies out there, and we need an avatar representing our opinions too. You must be sexist!”

    Actually Mrs. Z I would like to see videos with the roles reversed. I will keep hunting. Youtube is an endless source of amusement along those lines.

  • To paraphrase the most enlighten philosopher and thinker of our times, Forest Gump: “Brilliant is as brilliant does.”

  • We put a premium on verbal dexterity and being mentally fast on one’s feet, hence the popularity of the dreadful lawyer melodramas that infest television.

    I do not think that is the explanation for Juliana Margulies’ current prominence.

  • Don, if making a lot of money is the highest qualification, then Cain’s your man, or Trump, or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. But success in business does not impress me as much as intelligence and integrity, which I find sorely lacking on both sides. Adlai Stevenson was the last intellectual to run for president and he had holes in his shoes. Money has ruined American politics. Whoever has the most generally wins. America’s god is money and none other.

  • Actually Joe Stevenson was far from an intellectual, although he sounded like one, the same as Obama. As William F. Buckley acidly observed at the time: “Mr. Stevenson is always threatening to read a book.”

  • CatholicLawyer beat me to it.

    With apologies to Mrs. Z and declining numbers of sentient women everywhere: “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.” Ben Franklin.

  • There are different kinds of intelligence. One can be a bookish person who has an incredible ability memorize stuff and process information – Bill Clinton, for instance – but that same person may not be as adept at synthesizing the information for useful purposes. Others might not be as book smart but are much better at abstract thought.

    If you look at our history, presidents in the latter category have been much better than those of the former sort.

  • The man in Paul’s avatar was likely the most brilliant man ever elected President. His presidency nearly ruined his reputation.

    I’ll take a man like Washington any day, who, though lacking the intellectual chops of Adams, Jefferson, or Madison, surpassed them all in the role of President.

  • If you review some of his ads at Living Room Candidate, you come away impressed with Mr. Stevenson’s willingness to politely step on toes. Wouldn’t happen today.

    Must disagree with Mr. Zummo. H. Truman was a bibliophile, but our better presidents these last 80 years generally did not have intellectual avocations.

  • Don, I think you’re being a bit hard on Adlai, who deserves better than a throwaway line from WFB. Stevenson’s political lineage was impeccable and he attended Harvard and Princeton, worked for a top Chicago conservative law firm (Cutting, Moore and Sidley), otherwise had an impressive resume.

    An eloquent orator, his 1952 speech at the Democrat National Convention electrified the audience. Here is sample of that brilliant oratory:

    “When the tumult and the shouting die, when the bands are gone and the lights are dimmed, there is the stark reality of responsibility in an hour of history haunted with those gaunt, grim specters of strife, dissension, and materialism at home, and ruthless, inscrutable, and hostile power abroad. The ordeal of the twentieth century – the bloodiest, most turbulent age of the Christian era – is far from over. Sacrifice, patience, understanding, and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come. … Let’s talk sense to the American people! Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions.”

    Although he couldn’t hold a candle to Ike on TV, Adlai had a good sense of humor and made fun of his “egghead” nickname; in one speech he joked “eggheads of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your yolks!”

    His most famous moment came on October 25, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, when he gave a presentation at an emergency session of the Security Council. He forcefully asked the Soviet representative, Valerian Zorin, if his country was installing missiles in Cuba, punctuated with the famous demand “Don’t wait for the translation, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’!” Following Zorin’s refusal to answer the abrupt question, Stevenson retorted, “I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over.” In one of the most memorable moments in U.N. history, Stevenson then showed photographs that proved the existence of missiles in Cuba, just after the Soviet ambassador had implied they did not exist.

  • Stevenson performed credibly in the Cuban missile crisis Joe. He was given to tossing out acerbic one-liners that hurt him. During one of his campaigns for President he was told by one of his more frenzied supporters, if one can imagine a frenzied Stevenson supporter, that he had the support of all thinking voters. Stevenson replied that that was not enough. He needed a majority. Witty and glib and insulting to the voters he was trying to appeal to.

    Joe, you really do not want to get me going on incompetent big firm Chicago attorneys that I have encountered over the years. To his credit Stevenson did flunk out of Harvard Law School, and from what I have seen of several Harvard attorneys over the years, that was probably a wise move on his part!

  • “I’ll take a man like Washington any day, who, though lacking the intellectual chops of Adams, Jefferson, or Madison, surpassed them all in the role of President.”

    Indeed Jay: courage, character and leadership. When the Constitutional Convention was held there was no question that he would be the Chairman of it, despite all the intellectual luminaries who were present. The Scottish proverb could have been applied to Washington his entire life: “Wherever Macgregor sits, there is the head of the table.”

  • I thought this discussion was about the “brilliance” of President Obama not Mr. Stevenson’s own brilliance no matter how bright it may or may not be. Why are we discussing Mr. Stevenson in this post? I almost feel I am being lead astray by Mr. Green’s non-topical posts no matter how intelligent or witty they may be. It seems to be someone is mudding the waters and not dealing with the issue at hand. But I have been wrong in the past and could be wrong in this instant.

    Thank you, Mr. Shaw. I know you have to be quick at The American Catholic because its readers/posters are very intelligent. (No sarcasm intended).

  • I would assume Catholic Lawyer that no one wishes to rise and assert that Mr. Obama is brilliant. Joe did it initially but I doubt he was being serious other than in a left-handed “what a flim-flam artist Obama is” type of way. If no one chooses to carry the affirmative of the question, I do not have concerns for a bit of a tangent. In regard to Stevenson, the wealth of experience he had both in government and in the private sector before running for president in 1952 contrasts strongly with Mr. Obama.

  • In a discussion on the brilliance of Obama, is it any wonder that the topic was exhausted before it started, hence the need to postulate alternatives. 🙂

  • Mr. Lawyer, redirect. I brought up Stevenson as an example of an intellectual candidate — at least by modern standards, and thought it was relevant in the context that Don supplied. Perhaps an “ignore” button on this forum would allow you to blot me out forever. I would not be offended.

  • Don, some salacious Sidney stories would be appreciated. I know someone who worked at Sidley for 40 years and supposedly knows where all the bodies are buried. As this may be off-topic and disrupt CatholicLawyer’s concentration, perhaps a separate post would appropriate.

  • I became convinced of Obama’s intelligence when I read his Con law final exams and there hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary.

  • It’s blinding.
    Inter or Trans, whatever.
    It’s how he executed his buzzword ‘change’.
    It’s how he bailed 1%-ers and the 99%-ers are in line now.
    It’s how it is he who will bring home the military by Christmas, and how he used that word which he otherwise desecrates in the timeline.
    It’s how he noticed the Gulf beginning to fill with oil.
    It’s how he spoke about wanting aspects of women’s hellthcare available to his children.
    It’s his level of vocal respect for any political opposition, role modeling for behavior of the young.
    It’s the level of esteem shown for elderly citizens.
    It’s how he doesn’t give speeches about the national debt reduction plan and ‘jobs’ lately.
    It’s how he warned his campaigners that 2012 wouldn’t be sexy, because why.
    It’s how carefully he looks after the President.
    It’s how he gets the mainstream news to the world.
    It’s how he follows his flavor of the day advisors.
    It’s his sense of humor, such as the days of AttackWatch.
    It’s probably the campaign fundraising guest lists and parties.
    It’s how he’ll be at the G20 for the, uh, USA.
    Isn’t it.
    Character, courage, and morality blinded by the shine.

  • “I became convinced of Obama’s intelligence when I read his Con law final exams and there hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary”.

    Now if he would just release his own grades from law school or college RR, that, and perhaps clearly demonstrate as President that he has any respect for the Constitution.

    It would also help if he clearly demonstrated that he understands the Constitution was not written 20 centuries ago! 🙂

  • Maybe if you read his answers to his Con law exams, you might change your mind.

  • Obama may have a high IQ, though I’m not convinced of that. I do know the man is totally bereft of common sense.

  • Oh Joe, I love you too – in the “love thy enemy” sense of the word. I will never place you on “ignore” – I have been taught that you must know your enemy as you know yourself. You provide insight into how liberals think.

    “Know [the] other, know [the] self, hundred battles without danger; not knowing [the] other but know [the] self, one win one loss; not knowing [the] other, not knowing [the] self, every battle must [be] lost.”
    Sun Tzu quotes (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)

  • Lawyer, if we bury the hatchet let it not be in each other. You do misread me, though, because I am probably tack further right than most on TAC but occasionally enjoy a minority or dissenting view just for the sake of argument. And there are times I have strayed a bit on both sides of the center of the political axis on issues. But now, nearly into my 70’s, conservativism is a natural development of any thinking man while as a young man and an idealist I leaned more left.

    As for knowing myself, I quote Socrates: “If I knew myself I would run away.”

  • Burying the hatchet is a very good idea. I can affirm that Joe is no liberal. In some ways I do think he is more conservative than I am, which is absolutely frightening! 🙂

  • Compared to me, you people are liberals.

    Inquiring minds may ponder: If brilliant Obama had a high IQ, perfect SAT/LSAT scores, stellar G.P.A., and/or straight-A report cards at the madrassah those items would not be sealed.

    I bet he, like the smartest woman on Earth, got straight P’s in law school.

    Unlike Crumley, Obama is no traitor to the America and our way of life: it’s not his way of life. Obama is the enemy.

  • If one limits the brilliance measurement as a relative comparison to other politicians, then Obama fares better than if he is compared to a different group – say the brilliant commenters gathered here. Veritable Einsteins!

  • PBW, Bill Buckley used to say “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” I would tend to agree with him. In regard to Obama, lacking even the saving grace of academic brilliance I assume since he will not release his grades, I would prefer as president any of our regular contributors or commenters, chosen at random. Certainly the individual selected would be hard pressed to do a worse job in that position than the current occupant, and Mr. Obama would be freed up for his obvious true vocation: World Celebrity For Life.

  • I would tend to agree with him. In regard to Obama, lacking even the saving grace of academic brilliance I assume since he will not release his grades

    He graduated from law school with honors, though his specific transcript has not been published. It is inneresting how the deans at four different institutions have successfully sequestered his files, given the uneven performance of various like officials in regard to G.W. Bush, Albert Gore, and John Kerry.

  • Before the system was reformed in 1999 Art, after Obama’s time, approximately 76% of Harvard law grads each year would usually receive honors. From Harvard Law grads I have known the grading in the institution, at least during the eighties and nineties, was not generally rigorous.

  • I think William Dyer (“BeldarBlog”) had some discussions of this years ago. Mr. Dyer has no time for the President, and never did. His opinion: that Obama graduating magna cum laude indicated he had ample intelligence. A more interesting question is why he was an achiever in that one milieu and not in any other milieux. (Dyer was in particular perplexed by Obama’s contributions to the law review, such as they were (not)).

  • In Obama’s time Art about 30% of the grads at Harvard Law School attained the rank of magna cum laude. (I could have used such a lenient yard stick when I graduated from the U of I law school in 1982!) By Obama’s day the head of the law review at Harvard was elected rather than chosen by merit. Obama was apparently active as an editor but he wrote nothing on his own for the law review, not even a case note, a dreary task as I can attest from my own law school days, which is beyond odd.

  • Correction: Obama did apparently do what is described as a “case comment”, which was unsigned and not attributed to him until the 2008 campaign:

  • You will not see this in the New York Slimes or on Commie News Net.

    Before he flew home from the G-20 Meetings, Obamagenius insulted French Sarkozy’s physical appearance by telling the gathered heads of state the monkey’s new-born daughter is lucky. She looks like her mother.

    This is the smart diplomacy we has been waiting for, indeed!

  • Obama snubbed Easter 2011.

    Not so the murder cult.

    “President Obama and the First Lady mark the Hajj and Eid al-Adha”

    Michelle and I extend our greetings for a happy Eid al-Adha to Muslims worldwide and congratulate those performing Hajj.

    Thousands of Muslim Americans are among those who have joined one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings in making the pilgrimage to Mecca and nearby sites.

    As Muslims celebrate this Eid, they will also commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son by distributing food to those less fortunate around the world. They join the United States and the international community in relief efforts to assist those struggling to survive in the Horn of Africa and those recovering from the devastating earthquake in Turkey.

    The Eid and Hajj rituals are a reminder of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and the powerful role that faith plays in motivating communities to serve and stand with those in need. On behalf of the American people, we extend our best wishes during this Hajj season.

    Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour. ####

The United Nations and human life issues…

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011

The folks at C-FAM have been doing a wonderful job and have provided a wonderful service by tracking issues concerning human life at the United Nations (UN).  Their “Friday Report” is a “must read” for anyone who is interested in a quick, weekly update concerning these issues.



One “beneath the radar” effort at the UN that C-FAM has been tracking is the long-term strategy on the part of UN officials and agencies to make abortion legal internationally.  For example, last summer—during the months when UN press coverage is minimal—the UN Secretariat released a report from the UN Human Rights Council calling on all nations to accept that “women and girls must be granted access to legal abortion” in order that they might “fully enjoy their human rights.”

UN Special Rapporteur, Anand Grover, wrote the report which links abortion on demand with the fundamental right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  Grover noted:

Criminal laws penalizing and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realization of women’s right to health and must be eliminated….States must take measures to ensure that legal and safe abortion services are available, accessible, and of good quality. Safe abortions, however, will not immediately be available upon decriminalization unless States create conditions under which they may be provided. These conditions include establishing available and accessible clinics; the provision of additional training for physicians and health-care workers; enacting licensing requirements and ensuring the availability of the latest and safest medicines and equipment.

How far the UN’s mission has “progressed” (or has it really wandered astray?) since the 1950s when its focus was primarily upon the noble goals of promoting world peace, feeding the world’s children, and improving world health!

Today, “world peace” seems to imply advocating the murder of unborn infants, thus decreasing hunger among the world’s children and making medicines—like artificial forms of birth control and abortofacients—-a “human right” for women.

Interestingly, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, introduces Grover’s report, stating that he “has the honour” of presenting the report to the UN General Assembly.  That’s hardly in keeping with the UN’s official stance of neutrality on abortion.  But, then, so also is Grover’s report.



To read the C-FAM report or to subscribe to it, click on the following link:,-secretary-general-endorses-report.html

Continue reading...

3 Responses to The United Nations and human life issues…

Torches From God

Tuesday, November 1, AD 2011

“We are always ready to make a saint or prophet of the educated man who goes into cottages to give a little kindly advice to the uneducated. The mediaeval saint or prophet was an uneducated man who walked into grand houses to give a little kindly advice to the educated.”

G. K. Chesterton


All Saints Day reminds us of all those holy men and women whom God, in His infinite mercy, sends us as torches to light our path in a dark world.  Filled with God’s love and grace, they make golden the pages of our histories with their lives and witness.  Feeling the lure of sin just as much as any of us, they turned to God and reflected His love to us.  They come in all sorts of humanity:  men and women, all nationalities, wise, simple, warriors, pacifists, miracle workers, saints whose only miracle was their life, humorous, humorless, clergy, laity, old, young, united only in their Faith and their love for the Highest Love.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Torches From God