21 Responses to Public Service Announcement for Repentant Obama Voters

  • Saying “I’m sorry.” is not enough.

    For your penance . . .

    BTW: Happy New Year all!!!

  • No regrets, no apologies. Obama ’12. God Bless America!

    http://catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/

  • Kurt, the unacceptability of some (or all) Republican candidates does not make Obama one whit more acceptable (e.g., http://catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/2012/01/catholic-bishops-say-obama-epa-action.html).

  • Kurt. how any Catholic in good conscience can support the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history is beyond me. This is a man who raised funds trumpeting his opposition to a ban on partial birth abortion

    http://obama.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11

    Needless to say, he has always been the best friend of Worse Than Murder, Inc

  • Obama’s principles seem to be tenuous, too, e.g.:

    “President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0101/Obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-serious-reservations

    Reminds me of GWB signing the campaign finance reform law despite “reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.” Fat lot of good those reservations did us.
    #apoxonbothyourhouses

  • Ahh, Catholics for Obama. That calls to mind this classic.

  • Paul, that brilliant classic needs to be crossposted here at TAC!

  • Father McCartney, at yesterday’s 0730 Mass, gave a great sermon (as usual). Seems years ago an English newspaper ran a money-prize essay contest, “What is wrong with the World?”, 50 words or less.

    G. K. Chesterton entered a laconic response, something like, “In regards to ‘What is wrong with the World?’ The answer is ‘Me.'”

    The fact that about 39% of all the “me’s” in the US are so obstinately evil and/or incurably stupid as to adore this dishonest, dull and illogical nobody is symptomatic of a dire national pathology.

    So, “What is wrong with America?” My answer: Obama and hordes of desperate, dependent Obama-adulators, e.g., @Occupy.

  • Don,

    I note a few days ago Michelle Bachmann compared herself (avorably) to the most pro-abortion Prime Minister in British history. And she was not the first conservative to support the most pro-abortion Prime Minister in history.

    Best wishes for the new year.

  • Most Americans Kurt have no knowledge that Thatcher as a member of Parliament voted to decriminalize abortion. All Americans know that Obama is a total pro-abort. Your comment does not even attain red herring status.

  • Don, are you suggesting that conservatism selectively develops tag lines and then makes an effort to widely utilize them or restrain from using them, based on what serves their secular political interests?

  • No Kurt, I simply stated that it was beyond me how any Catholic could in good conscience support the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history. Instead of attempting to defend the indefensible, you responded that Michele Bachmann had praised Margaret Thatcher. I noted that most Americans are bone ignorant in regard to Thatcher’s votes in Parliament regarding abortion, and I assume Bachmann is in that category. Anytime you really wish to attempt to defend your support of the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, I will be eager to read it.

  • Thatcher’s most egregious “sin” was to only slow Britain’s slide into liberal ruin.

    That “dig” at Michelle Bachmann and the Iron “Lady” is typical liberal detraction, as ever and always, dishonest and illogical.

    Kurt, Are you taking time off from “occupying” (assaulting police officers, defecating in public, murdering, raping) someplace?

  • Seems as if when an unrepentant Obama voter doesn’t have anything good to say about Obama, he/she doesn’t say anything. Hence, we have no commentary about The Zero in Hawaii on vacation.

    Try on the following:

    Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means, Kurt, that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.

    The real unemployment rate is 11 percent.

    Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.

    College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.

    Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.

    The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.

    Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

    Hope and change!

  • Don, I don’t disagree with you that Mrs. Bachamnn is likely to be bone ignorant on a variety of matters, as are in my judgment some of the other candidates. And there you have an additonal reason why so many Catholics are supporting the President.

  • I rather suspect though Kurt that Bachmann is at least clear on the number of states in the Union:

  • Don,

    Your kinda proving my point. It’s not about the President being “the most pro-abortion…” because Maggie gets a pass for being the same. It’s a tag line invented to bash the President with no more depth than going after him for a slip of the tongue (or maybe not, as there are 57 ‘state’ delegate selection primaries/caucuses).

  • No Kurt, your raising Thatcher is a completely irrelevant attempt to defend the indefensible. Thatcher is not noted in this country, or the UK for that matter, for having supported abortion, but rather for her support for free market economics. If she had run in this country as a pro-abort she would never have gained the Republican nomination for President due to her stance on abortion. I am still waiting for any real defense of your supporting the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history.

  • It’s the ruined economy and Obama’s war on the private sector that will turn him out.

    ” . . . a tag line invented to bash the . . . ” [BARF]

    Obama’s only chance is if his media lickspittles are successful in censoring from human knowledge the economic ruin he is wreaking.

    Please God, we can rid ourselves of Obama while there is something left.

    Then, 100 years hence, historians will look back on this fiscal train wreck and marvel at how someone so dishonest, dull and illogical can have exercised such a hold on savants like Kurt.

Auld Lang Syne

Saturday, December 31, AD 2011

Something for the weekend.  Auld Lang Syne sung by the incomparable Arethra Franklin.  Written by the immortal Scots poet Bobby Burns in 1788, his poem captured perfectly the grandeur of human memory as it ponders the cherished past.  It is very appropriate that it has become an essential part of New Year’s Eve celebrations.  Here is his original version:

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

and never brought to mind ?

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

and auld lang syne ?

                                                                                                                   

For auld lang syne, my jo (or my dear),

for auld lang syne,

we’ll tak a cup o’ kindness

for auld lang syne.

And surely ye’ll be your pint-stowp !

and surely I’ll be mine !

And we’ll tak a cup o’ kindness yet,

for auld lang syne.

                                                                                                                   

We twa hae run about the braes,

and pu’d the gowans fine ;

But we’ve wander’d mony a weary fit,

sin auld lang syne.

                                                                                                                     

We twa hae paidl’d i’ the burn,

frae morning sun till dine;

But seas between us braid hae roar’d

sin auld lang syne.

                                                                                                                          

And there’s a hand, my trusty fiere!

and gie’s a hand o’ thine !

And we’ll tak a right gude-willy waught,

for auld lang syne.

Translated into Sassenach:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Auld Lang Syne

  • Ah, Scottish– just as hard to understand as my dad always told me! (to be fair, it probably didn’t help that his exposure was from grandfathers and great-uncles…his great grandma, too, I think)

    Another translation:
    Should old acquaintances be forgotten,
    And never brought to mind?
    Should old acquaintances be forgotten,
    And days of long ago !
    Chorus:
    For old long ago, my dear
    For old long ago,
    We will take a cup of kindness yet
    For old long ago.
    We two have run about the hillsides
    And pulled the daisies fine,
    But we have wandered many a weary foot
    For old long ago.
    We two have paddled (waded) in the stream
    From noon until dinner time,
    But seas between us broad have roared
    Since old long ago.
    And there is a hand, my trusty friend,
    And give us a hand of yours,
    And we will take a goodwill draught (of ale)
    For old long ago!
    And surely you will pay for your pint,
    And surely I will pay for mine!
    And we will take a cup of kindness yet
    For old long ago!

    I suspect love for this song tracks rather closely with love of fantasy lit.

  • Each bought his own cup and together they shared times and experiences. No wonder there’s hope for a cup of kindness when old acquaintance is remembered. Friends from time ago are still so. In 2011, ‘friend’ has taken on a whole different usage.

  • Thanks for providing a translation. Here’s a humorous take one the Scots brogue:

  • A laugh is a good way to start the year Thomas! I have enough Scots blood in me to appreciate this old Mony Python sketch:

10 Responses to Evil Republicans Explained

  • I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. The Republicans gave up on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 at least 20 years ago.

    Now we’re having Romney forced down our throats. If he wins, it will be “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.” If he loses, then the GOP apologists will blame people like me who voted third party for helping to elect Obama. But I’m not casting my vote next year against Obama. I’m casting it against statism. And the notion that the architect of RomneyCare will repeal Obamacare and restore freedom as the birthright of all Americans is pure fantasy.

  • Ya know, I used’ta travel through Brooklyn LIRR Sta. to get home from Wall Street. Onst, we had a hippie-type, long hair with a petition. Being in a charitable (Hey, we won!) mood, I engaged the nitwit in conversation. It was after the GOP had won the WH b/c Nader had split the commie vote. Even that dimwit had it singed in his pea-brain that you never allow the enemy to win b/c you don’t think the nominee is or is not @-enough.

    We need to soldier on. Once Romney is in and we have GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, we will take back our birthrights.

    BECAUSE if Obama wins, it is the end of America as we know it.

    It’s okay, Steve. It’s PK as long as you don’t vote for Obama again.

    Oh, and about Newt’s $$$ from FNMA. I have a list of all the gangsters who received $$$$ in FNMA pol graft, er, PAC that includes Obama, and a number of others you would not expect.

  • I have two words that can nullify every one of Bill Whittle’s facts:
    Hope & Change.

    Carry on.

  • “I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. The Republicans gave up on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 at least 20 years ago.”

    Melodramatic Steve, and completely untrue.

    “then the GOP apologists will blame people like me who voted third party for helping to elect Obama”.

    Nah, Steve, the vast likihood is that no third party candidate this round will amount to a Hill of beans in vote total. You will simply have cast your vote out of pique that better is not perfect, something that does not occur in politics. However, that is your right, and I have little love for the Weather-vane in any case if he is the Republican nominee. However, I do think he is far preferable to Obama and I will vote according to that belief.

  • 2. Is private racial discrimination okay?

    3. The judiciary usurping the power of Congress was the argument FDR used to end the Lochner era.

    6. No preferential option for the poor?

    8. Like the Southern Strategy?

    9. I agree that class warfare is undesirable, usually ineffective, and often disastrous but not necessary wrong.

  • 2. No, certainly in regard to race, which is why the Republican party endorsed civil rights acts calling for a banning of discrimation in commerce for decades prior to the about face of the Democrats on the issue.

    3. Even FDR couldn’t be wrong all the time RR.

    6. Certainly not when it comes to special privileges being bestowed by government.

    8. A myth: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

    9. Fostering class hatred RR is every bit as despicable as fostering hatred on the basis of race or religion.

  • It is easier for a camel to pass to pass through the eye of a needle than for a…

    Class warfare!

  • Restrained Radicalism

    Discrimination (the “effects test”, quotas, affirmative action, set-asides) against white males is public and private policy.

    They can’t enact it as law. They appoint a judge/judges who order it, e.g., abortion.

    Obama must greatly prefer poor people. He’s creating millions of new ones.

    You get no charity points for confiscating someone else’s money to buy poor (many with HBO on only two color TV’s) peoples’ votes.

  • “It is easier for a camel to pass to pass through the eye of a needle than for a…”

    Christ never breathed a word RR that suggested that the poor should envy the rich or hate them. He enjoined on the rich a duty to help the poor. He enjoined on us all the necessity of not letting a desire for material goods stand in the way of loving God and loving our neighbor.

  • We need the rich. They attract great American entrepreneurs to the same business area who create competition, which transmits more value to consumers. Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?

MSNBC/NY Times Poll Alert: “Are Religious Rights Being Trampled on by Government?”

Thursday, December 29, AD 2011

Fr. Z says it best:

Perhaps other blogs will pick this up and help.

An article from the ultra-liberal New York Times (“Hell’s Bible”) is posted on the even more liberal MSNBC.

The article concerns the objections of the USCCB against pressure from the Obama Administration and/or states to force Catholic adoption agencies to allow homosexual “couples” to adopt.

You have to scroll down to the bottom of the MSNBC webpage to find the poll form.

Click here!

Continue reading...

5 Responses to MSNBC/NY Times Poll Alert: “Are Religious Rights Being Trampled on by Government?”

  • Chris Matthews of MSNBC has blatantly stated that he wants to see Obama re-elected. They are obviously using this survey to find chinks in their secular armor, and to defend Obama’s policies.

  • For roughly half a century, it has been the right of the Adoption Agency to determine who is fit to be a parent, why is it that the government feels that that right must be changed now? Why can’t we say that homosexuals aren’t fit to be parents?

    I agree that this is a complete intrusion of the rights of religion. Thanks for the heads-up on the poll (when I voted, roughly 18,300 voted and it was a 49-49-2 split).

  • Not a very good poll design– I tried a different browser after I voted and it would have let me vote again.

  • Interesting. I just voted @ 9:30pm Eastern Time and the poll results were:
    18,148 votes and 49-49-2 split.

  • Interestingly, the article states that the Lutheran Church in Missouri is going to go ahead with referrals to gay couples. I read that the Lutheran Church membership is dwindling, and they’re looking to expand their membership. Herbert W. Chilstrom is former presiding bishop of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Chilstrom has written an open letter to the Bishops of Minnesota asking them to accept gay ‘marriage’ because gays are like blacks or something (his words).

    Changing doctrine to accommodate members is a short-term solution. The one thing that make the Catholic Church strong is it’s unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. The Lutheran church is making itself weaker, not stronger by bending God’s word to accommodate its membership.

    Back in 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer, a noted psychiatrist had reported that homosexuals who really want to be cured, can become heterosexual using a variety of techniques.

    “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning.” Spitzer looked at 200 homosexuals – 143 men and 57 women. To the researchers’ surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67% of the men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process.

    Here’s a link to Dr. Spitzer’s discussion of his work:

    http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html

    Incidentally, Dr. Spitzer was the lead on getting homosexuality removed from the DSM in the 1980s because it supposedly couldn’t be cured. They gay community raised him on a pedestal then. Now they want him to go away.

Yep, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is Pretty Much of a Wackdoodle Isolationist

Thursday, December 29, AD 2011

That Ron Paul is a conspiracy believing nutcase as the video above indicates should not be controversial.  This is the man who was the keynote speaker at the John Birch Society fiftieth anniversary dinner in 2008, an organization that has embraced such bizarre conspiracy theories as Eisenhower being a Communist and water fluoridation being a Communist plot.  Throughout his career he has given a wink and a nod to most paranoid conspiracy groups on the right.  We see this most clearly in the newsletters that came out for over a decade in his name.  Ron Paul claims now not to know what was in those newsletters which I find passing strange since he earned a million bucks on them in one year alone (1993).  However, Ron Paul the crank and coddler of cranks is not the focus of this post.  This post is concerned with Ron Paul the isolationist.  That he is an isolationist, and not simply a non-interventionist as he claims,  was amply demonstrated in  a recent column by Eric Dondero who worked for Paul for 12 years:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.  He denies this charge vociferously.  But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views.  For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII.  He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business.  When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

Continue reading...

104 Responses to Yep, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is Pretty Much of a Wackdoodle Isolationist

  • How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble and the attack from Bin-Laden is crazy and unelectable but their puppet say what he thinks will get him elected guy is not. Watch this video from 1999 and remember how much hate Dr. Paul received for saying that our foreign policies let to 9/11/2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

  • This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

    Ron Paul is an isolationist but Eric Dondero just sounds like a disgruntled employee.

    “He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.”

    That makes Ron Paul a prophet. Fact is he voted for the war in Afghanistan and if there’s one thing you can’t deny him is that he always votes his principles.

    Paulites say that Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. What’s the difference? They say Paul wants to trade and “talk” with other nations. No, he doesn’t. He opposes free trade agreements. They say that FTA’s aren’t really free, they’re managed trade, which is true but they’re freer than the status quo. But Paul isn’t even for free trade. He wants the entire federal government funded by tariffs. Combined with his position on immigration which is the one area he’s at odds with libertarians, there’s not a shred of evidence that he’s anything but an isolationist.

  • “This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?”

    Groupthink, as indicated by the climate-change e-mails, is not conspiracy RR. I also do not believe that there is a conspiracy among the mainstream media. When 90% of a group shares a similar world view, no conspiracy is needed.

    “Eric Dondero just sounds like a disgruntled employee.”

    Yeah, a disgruntled employee that Ron Paul kept on his payroll for 12 years and a disgruntled employee who spends a fair amount of time in his article defending Ron Paul.

    “Fact is he voted for the war in Afghanistan and if there’s one thing you can’t deny him is that he always votes his principles.”

    Actually I can deny that. Google Ron Paul and earmarks.

  • Ron Paul getting the nomination (which I do not think has any likelihood at all) would be the one thing that would for sure have me refuse to vote for the GOP candidate against Obama. I’d have to go third party or sit out. Ron Paul is so utterly and idiotically unsuited to be president.

  • Don, Paul votes his principles on earmarks. There’s a lot to criticize Paul for but earmarks isn’t one of them.

  • How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble

    Asset bubbles can and do form in the context of a specie-based currency, as they did in equities markets in 1928 and 1929. What you cannot do with a specie-based currency is provide liquidity in response to demand. The history of the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1933 is sadly instructive as to the consequences.

    This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

    Just in case you had not noticed, there has been a conspiracy involving a small corps of faculty at the University of East Anglia, Pennsyvania State University, the Goddard Institute, the American Geophysical Union, et al. to block publication of papers which contradicted the thesis they were pushing and trash the reputations of scholars who composed such papers and editors who approved them for publication. These people have also, and in conflict with statutes and regulations governing the terms of public grant money they have received, refused to archive and distribute raw data for others to re-analyze and destroyed documents to frustrate freedom-of-information requests in the UK and the US. Alas, some of these folk held gatekeeper positions with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Not at all RR. Paul rails against big government and the taxes and borrowing to support it until it is time to request pork for his district and then he is all aboard the gravy train:

    During fiscal year 2011 he was one of only four Republicans to request earmarks and here is what he wanted from our federal tax dollars:

    •$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
    •$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
    •$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
    •$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
    •$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
    •$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
    •$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
    •$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
    •$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
    •$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility

    He will request the earmarks and then vote against them in a truly hypocritical little dance he does each year to maintain the myth that he is against this type of spending, while he still brings home the pork for his district.

  • Don, that’s while saying it’s hypocritical for you to take the tax deduction for mortgage interest while still opposing the deduction in principle.

  • RR he poses as a peerless champion of small government, fiscal responsibility and being against any expenditures not specifically authorized by the Constitution. He then makes sure to fill his plate each year with bacon for his district. Hypocrisy is too weak a term for this grand canyon divergence between rhetoric and reality.

  • Don, what do you think of the mortgage interest deduction and do you take it? What do you think of Social Security and Medicare and do you plan to accept it? Is it your position that if you oppose a government program, you should not accept its benefits?

  • Mac,

    Pacem. Wwould you not give to your children, er, constituents?

    Apparently, Paul refuses to partake of the Congressional pension bonanza. I think that is true to his beliefs.

    And, ’bout his inflation-risk concentrated investments: if he were one of the economic apocalypse guys, he would not own 60% gold/silver mining stocks. You can’t barter, eat, or shoot mining stocks.

    Just saying.

    I’m for pretender that is
    Pro-God
    Pro-gun
    Pro-life
    Pro-America
    Not Obama.

  • If Paul wants to take the position that he opposes favors outlawing earmarks, but will nonetheless request and vote for them until they are outlawed, then this position would be at least somewhat analogous to your mortgage interest hypothetical. But by requesting them so as to appease local constituents and then voting against them so as to appease his national base, he is being at least somwhat hypocritical in my view. Given Paul’s reputation for being such a man of principle, I do have a problem with this. Most politicians embrace both the concept and the art of compromise, and live with charged of being insufficiently principled. Paul distininguishes himself as being distinctively principled, and therefore can fairly be charged with hypocrisy on the matter of earmarks.

    Finally, I agree with Don that Paul’s views are eccentric for a reason — they are wrong-headed and naive. Anyone who thinks tariffs are a good way to fund the federal government is just plain nutty.

  • “Is it your position that if you oppose a government program, you should not accept its benefits?”

    My position RR is that if an elected representative is going to pretend to be a champion of what Paul purports to be a champion of in regard to governmental spending, it is very much like a Congressman voting against abortion and then paying for one for his mistress. In regard to Ron Paul this is especially the case because his propaganda conveys a completely false impression of him and government spending. He has gloried in the nickname of Dr. No in Congress while always being Dr. Yes when it comes to pork for his district.

  • I want to see Congressman Paul debate Congressman Kucinich!

  • And the substantive difference between Paul and Kucinich is??????????????????????????

    They are both nut-cases.

  • Don:

    I totally agree I’m not going to vote for that racist Paul with his wing nut beliefs.

    Instead I am going to vote for a Republican candidate who between 1966 and 1969 actively recruited people for and since held successively higher leadership positions in an organization that believed as follows:

    • Blacks could not have leadership positions within the group or receive other benefits within the organization because being black was how they were cursed by God (until their supreme leader had a revelation in 1978 that God now believed Black people were OK).

    • The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

    • Ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.

    • As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

    • God lives on a planet called Kolob. Jesus has his own planet as well. As good members of the organization they will have their own planets one day as well.

    Yes, I will be voting for Gov. Willard Mitt Romney (R, Kolob)

  • Please Eva, satire should only be done by experts. If you expect virtually anyone to rise to the defense of Mitt “The Weather-Vane” Romney on this blog you are sadly mistaken. However attempting to defend Ron “The Strawberries! The Strawberries!” Paul by attacking Romney for his inherited religious beliefs is beyond the pale and will not be tolerated in this thread.

  • While it’s hard for me to say enough that I think Mormon religious beliefs are laughable (and I’m not a Romney fan, though it seems like the nomination is likely to end up with him because of no one else turning out to be a very credible candidate) I can’t help thinking that Romney’s religious beliefs are probably a lot less harmful to governing than Ron Paul’s political beliefs are.

    However, Eva does underline that should Romney land the nomination, there will a massive amount of work put into fanning anti-Mormon feeling by the Obama campaign and it’s operatives. The “Obama might be Muslim” whispering campaign will look pretty tame by comparison.

  • If you play the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas album backwards, it says “Ron Paul is dead.” The Zionist Illuminati Yoko Ono bankers are behind this, I tell you!

  • Ah, J. Christian, I am glad I had finished drinking my pop before I read your comment!

  • The only GOP candidate for whom I will NEVER vote is, unfortunately, the one most likely to get the nomination. I could hold my nose and vote even for Dr. Paul. But I will sit out or vote 3rd party before I vote for Romney (and his religious beliefs will play absolutely no role in my decision making in that regard).

  • Rasmussen Reports: Romney – 45%; Obama – 39%.

    It isn’t that Romeny is loved more. It’s that Obama is loved even less.

    If from his or her GOP nomination until Election Day, Romney or whomever says one word about a subject other than the horrid economy . . .

    Many Americans “are unemployed or have family members, neighbors and friends who are losing their homes, their jobs and their hope for a better future while Washington lives it up on their dime. They read stories on the Internet – stories their newspapers will not print – about billions lost on ‘green energy’ boondoggles while they pay $40 to $50 dollars for a tank of gas. They are losing their houses to foreclosure after Obama promised to fix that problem. They see trillion dollar deficits while their living standards erode and are demanding to know where the money’s going.

    They are that virtual mob with pitchforks that are desperate to anoint someone as their leader who will help them storm the castle and evict the ogre holed up there. Mitt Romney doesn’t look like the kind of guy who is comfortable handling a pitchfork, but if he’s the last man standing after all the others fail, he’ll be appointed to that role.” From The Virginian blog

    Meanwhile, on a golf course in Hawaii . . .

  • “It isn’t that Romney is loved more. It’s that Obama is loved even less.”

    Precisely TShaw. I pray that we will not have Romney as our standard bearer, but Obama is very beatable, and I expect that he will grow more so as election day comes clearer and people ask themselves the Reagan question:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

  • Doesn’t matter. O will likely get a second term bc Romney’s Mormonism is just too odd for most voters. I will vote Paul just for the fun of it.

  • This isn’t 1928 cmatt. Appeals to religious bigotry would backfire against Obama big time. The Weather-vane additionally is as threatening as a piece of white bread with a glass of milk.

  • Paul is now admitting he wrote parts of the newsletters, but only the non-controversial bits and he is still insisting that he didn’t read or know about the controversial portions. It doesn’t pass the giggle test. It is on a par with Obama stating that he sat in Wright’s church for over a decade and didn’t hear any controversial sermons. (Obama should have used the excuse that he simply slept through most of the sermons; quite a few people could empathize with that!)

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/

  • What’s amazing about the support for Ron Paul is that there is another candidate who espouses pretty much all the same things Paul does but who is not certifiable. I am talking about Gary Johnson. Granted he’s a little loopy, but unlike Ron Paul he has an actual record of political accomplishment in his life.

  • In the past, I’ve quipped that Ron Paul’s slogan should be “Protecting Freedom at Home, Forsaking It Abroad,” but after this, I’m not sure of the first part.

    It’s strange that otherwise rational men like Mark Shea and John Zmirak seem to have fallen for some of his ideas (namely the ones involving American foreign involvement), though – thankfully – they haven’t embraced anti-Semitism or anything like that. (I do remember an article by Zmirak where he almost, almost comes to complete agreement with Pat Buchanan while reviewing the latter’s “Churchill’s Unneccessary War.”)

    On Paul’s proposal to grant letters of marquis and reprisal, two questions come to mind:
    1. Wasn’t privateering primarily a sea-based activity? If so, how could it effect al-Quaeda, the leadership of which resided in the decidedly landlocked country of Afghanistan.)
    2. Does Ron Paul know why letters of marquis and reprisal were outlawed under international law – because privateers often became pirates once the war is over? If he thinks sending patriotic, government-controlled US troops abroad causes international chaos, he should see what would happen after we’ve enabled a ton of free-booting mercenaries groups with military capabilities…

  • Tommy, Paul’s idea of simply picking up our marbles and going home strikes a chord with people who opposed the Iraq War, and that explains Shea. Zmirak I do not know enough about to comment. We live in a time of “let’s pretend” in our society and the idea that we can simply abdicate our role in the World without dire consequences is deeply attractive to more than a few Americans and plays to the isolationist sentiment never far below the surface in this country. (I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years that we could easily balance our budget if we were not giving away all of our money to the “durn foreigners”. ) In the Nineteenth Century we could get away with isolationism courtesy of broad oceans and the Royal Navy. Now, it is simple lunacy.

    In regard to letters of marque and reprisal you are correct in your observations. I am certain that none of this would register with Paul since he has an ability to steadfastly ignore mere facts that contradict his ideology.

  • It’ll be interesting to see whether the groundwork laid by Paul will translate into votes for Gary Johnson.

  • Tommy, Paul’s idea of simply picking up our marbles and going home strikes a chord with people who opposed the Iraq War, and that explains Shea.

    Doesn’t explain Shea.

    Zmirak I do not know enough about to comment.

    It can be difficult to tell at times whether or not Mr. Zmirak is being tongue-and-cheek.

    We live in a time of “let’s pretend” in our society and the idea that we can simply abdicate our role in the World without dire consequences is deeply attractive

    More precisely, Paul et al deny the reality of political conflict and the consequences thereof in contexts which lack a coercive and adjudicatory authority. Joseph Sobran’s writings (his turn toward anarchism) made this more explicit. Paul trafficks in the notion that conflicts abroad will always and everywhere be inconsequential to us or that we face no conflicts ourselves if we do not generate them with policy errors (which we would not if we would stop listening to fools like Henry Kissinger and Bernard Lewis and start listening to savvy and well-informed folk like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell). The pretense that one can turn the effects of political conflict on and off with a spigot does tend to save libertarians of a sort from giving consideration to trade-offs and qualifications.

    (I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years that we could easily balance our budget if we were not giving away all of our money to the “durn foreigners”. )

    You might remind them that the sum of appropriations for various components of the State Department, the Defense Department, the Agency for International Development, &c. devoted to foreign aid amounted to about $58.4 bn during the fiscal year concluding on 30 September 2010. That would amount to 0.4% of domestic product, or about 1% of all public expenditure.

    In the Nineteenth Century we could get away with isolationism courtesy of broad oceans and the Royal Navy. Now, it is simple lunacy.

    Now try to tell that to folks who fancy that several sentences in Washington’s Farewell Address suffices for a permanent blueprint for American foreign policy.

  • Calling Ron Paul an isolationist only makes sense if you see American’s main role in the world as a military power. This is, unfortunately, all too common.

  • Ron Paul’s view of the World Nate is that the rest of the planet can go to Hell as the United States enjoys peace and security at home. He is the ideological descendant of the fools who made up the America First Movement prior to our entry into World War II and who would have been happy to see Hitler and Hirohito emerge triumphant from the War if the US could have avoided being part of it. The political and moral blindness of such a policy should be self-evident to all but the willfully blind or the terminally gullible.

  • “Doesn’t explain Shea.”

    I gave it my best shot Art, perhaps you would care to give me a hand? 🙂

  • “You might remind them that the sum of appropriations for various components of the State Department, the Defense Department, the Agency for International Development, &c. devoted to foreign aid amounted to about $58.4 bn during the fiscal year concluding on 30 September 2010. That would amount to 0.4% of domestic product, or about 1% of all public expenditure.”

    Oh I do Art. I am usually met with stunned disbelief. Then when I start talking about social security they want to change the subject!

  • I seem to recall that the America First Committee dissolved the 2d week of December in 1941, that Sen. Gerald Nye cast a vote in favor of a declaration of war, and that Charles Lindburgh volunteered for service. Sen. Vandenberg later said that the attack on Pearl Harbor pretty much discredited the foreign policy he had been promoting in Congress. An earlier generation of isolationists was less impervious to empirical data.

    I gave it my best shot Art, perhaps you would care to give me a hand?

    I’m already in the doghouse with Dale Price.

  • People believe things such as that Bush was behind 9/11 because it is much easier to find flaws with friends who won’t harm you than to deal manfully with enemies who wish to kill you. Paul represents the fundamental selfishness of modern life – the merciless disregard of anything that does not bring pleasure to the self. Bush, flaws and all, immediately saw the threat post-9/11; so did many others…but at the end of the day, the selfishness of our society triumphed over our duty to do what is right. Obama rode it to victory in 2008…Paul hopes to do the same in 2012. That literal millions of people are suffering the cruelest of repression doesn’t even enter in to the equation for the selfish…they are out of sight, out of mind and their problems – if they must be brought up, at all – are entirely someone else’s fault (the “neocons” or the “Zionists” or what have you..as long as you are attributing the problem to something that doesn’t actually exist … there are, actually, no “neocons” … it gets you off the hook for dealing with the real perpetrators).

    Paul, though, will flame out – my bet is that third place will be his showing in Iowa (and God grant us that Santorum finishes in first place!). So will Obama – I sense a swing in our nation back towards honor, back towards a willingness to just do what needs to be done. Not all of us, to be sure, but I think a majority…and a majority which will rule in 2012.

  • Not that I am any great fan of Romney, and I certainly don’t think he’s really the best possible candidate — but really folks, if he does turn out to be the GOP nominee, does anyone on this forum truly, honestly, believe that he would be worse than Obama?

    If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

  • I am on record Elaine as stating that I will vote for the Weather-vane over Obama. The only Republican, out of the current field of candidates, I could not support would be Ron Paul. I think he has zero chance of being the nominee, but if he were I would not vote for President. On second thought perhaps I would write in Dead Ronald Reagan, as the corpse of Reagan would be a far superior President than either the Empty Suit from Chicago or Doctor Delusional! 🙂

  • If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

    Just want to point out that if Romney is elected, we could be stuck with him for eight years, and many Republicans in the House and Senate will feel obligated to support his agenda out of loyalty to the party. If Obama is re-elected, we have only four more years of him and his agaenda faces a strong “loyal opposition” in Congress. Just sayin’.

  • Four more year of Obamanomics, Obama court nominations and Obama at the helm of our foreign policy in the perilous days I see ahead? No, the Weather-vane is much preferable to that in my opinion.

  • Court appointments are the only reason I’d consider pulling the lever for Romney. But even on that score, how much can we trust him?

  • I have zero trust in the Weather-vane Paul, but I find it hard to believe that he would be worse than Obama on any aspect of the Presidency, and I think he would be substantially better than Obama in the areas I set forth above. Additionally, a primary challenge could be brought in 2016 if Romney proves a disaster. Reagan came close to unseating Ford in 1976 and the party was much less conservative then than it is now. Additionally I think the Weather-vane is a political opportunist above-all. I think he will keep up his current born-again conservative act as President because it will be to his political advantage, at least through 2016.

    My motto if the Weather-vane is the nominee: Vote for the Weather-vane! He won’t be as big a disaster as Obama has been!

  • Whether Romney is preferable to Obama (a debateable point as far as I’m concerned) matters little to me. I’m tired of voting for whatever RINO stiff is placed before me simply because of dire warnings that “the alternative is worse”. I won’t vote for him under any circumstances (and I will use my blog to try to convince others to do likewise), so don’t bother playing the “but Obama is worse game” with me.

    And, besides, Paul Zummo’s assessment above is 100% correct.

  • I have too much respect for you Jay to try to convince you of anything, and I pray that the Weather-vane will not be the nominee, as I have little to no respect or trust in him. However, after the primaries, assuming Ron “The Trilateralists are coming!” Paul is not the nominee, I intend to hammer away on this blog the message that Obama must and shall be defeated. However, it still may not come to a Weather-vane-Obama contest.

    If Santorum can pull an upset in Iowa, and that is not beyond the range of possible outcomes now, I can imagine a national rallying of conservatives behind him a la Perry, Cain and Gingrich, and this time I think it would stick. Santorum is bright and articulate and I think he could win this if he once gains a front position. Most Republicans do not want the Weather-vane as the nominee and a viable conservative could defeat him.

  • I guess Paul was agreeing with Spambot, so it’s Spambot’s assessment (as well as Paul’s) that is spot on.

  • Obama dillenda est.

    Here is a metaphor for Romney. A man goes to the beach, fills his navel with glue, sticks a flag in it, and determines which way the wind’s blowing.

    Either Romney or Obama is less vital than the GOP taking the Senate and adding to the House majority. That is best case scenario for us greedy bankers.

    My prediction for 2012 Jay will again vote for Obama again.

    Obama must go!

    Call me a racist. Call me anything you want. Except don’t call me late for supper. No wait! I feed myself.

  • I’m with Jay on this one (except that I prefer Romney to Paul). There are only so many times I can be told to vote for the guy that is simply the lesser of two evils. I did it with McCain, I’ve done it with Dole, and I have no plans to rally ’round the Romney flag, especially when there are several preferable alternatives. If Romney is the nominee, I’m just sitting this dance out.

  • Court appointments are the only reason I’d consider pulling the lever for Romney.

    There is no reason you have to participate (and I generally do not), but it might be agreeable to have a chief executive who takes a passing interest in the quantum of public sector borrowing the country is undertaking each year (keeping in mind that Italy’s publicly-held debt is proportionately 60% higher than ours but their current public sector deficit is a THIRD the size of ours), has some experience with restructurings, and has a demonstrated ability to run something other than his mouth. The current incumbent is not that guy.

  • There are only so many times I can be told to vote for the guy that is simply the lesser of two evils. I did it with McCain, I’ve done it with Dole,

    I would cite Phyllis Schlafly on this point: all things being equal, you get more of what you vote for when you have a binary choice; the choice, however, is less palatable. Israel’s spectrum of political parties allows you to vote for precisely what you want. What you are going to get, though, is the Ministry of Parks and a minister without portfolio.

    John McCain has a temper (which seems to manifest itself only when dealing with colleagues), sometimes acts out of personal pique, and favors an inadvisable immigration policy. He has some other deficiencies which you find in working pols generally. He has made his political career in Arizona (which is not exactly Frisco), has twice been a vigorous competitor among the 10% or so of adult citizens who vote in Republican primaries and caucuses, and (per the American Conservative Union) votes for their preferred measures >80% of the time. You problem is not with Capt. McCain. It is with the culture and general thrust of the Republican Party.

    As for Dole, he was an intemperate Capitol Hill apparatchik who manifested signs of having absorbed far too much of the culture of our rancid national legislature (see the Americans-with-Disabilities-Act). He could add and subtract though, and had an allergy to public sector borrowing. Ronald Reagan failed on both counts.

  • Mark,

    While I agree, as you stated, “That literal millions of people are suffering the cruelest of repression doesn’t even enter in to the equation for the selfish…”, until you get the the charachterization of folks as “selfish”.

    I believe that America has a role to play in the wrld that trascends our narrow national political or economic interests. I think that all the goofy folks who have ever espoused US isolationism, as if thae bad actors wouldn’t eventually get around to trying to beat our behinds after dealing with the rest of the world, are ill-informed and ignorant of human nature (does accomodation and appeasement EVER work, from the school yard to the world stage?). But I believe that terming them “selfish” mischaracterizes the cause, and our duty.

    It isn’t selfishness that causes folks to not want to send their sons and daughters off to war. For it to be selfish, there would have to exist a duty to send people off to foreign wars. and just as not all of us are called to be policement or firemen, and are not selfish if we choose to pay others to do those jobs, neither is the US mandated by manifest destiny or whatever to send soldiers and to expend blood and tresure for the freedom of others. Is it a just cause to do so? Absolutely. And I joined the military because *I* thought *I* had a responsibility to participate in the defense of the weak.

    But those who espouse isolationism aren’t “selfish”. And if they avoid military service, they’re not “selfish”. At least, I don’t think so.

    Or maybe they are. But I think there’s a better characterization. Anyone gots ideas?

  • I used to be a regular reader of the American Catholic blog, but eventually I got really turned off by certain contributors. Every so often I check in to see if things have changed, or if they are at lease tolerable and readable— this post disappoints me.

    The hate some people display for Ron Paul is disgusting in the extreme, particularly the name-calling. The attacks some people lob over to the libertarian-wing of the GOP only serve to cloud the intellectual truth. It’s dispiriting to endure, and as a practicing Catholic in particular— it’s just sad to watch.

    I changed my registration in NYC from Independent to Republican specifically so I could vote for Ron Paul. I’m going to enjoy doing so, no matter what the outcome of these initial primaries.

    Not a single GOP nominee is any more than marginally “better” than Obama. Will the wars, the spending, or the social engineering end under any of these candidates? No.

    It is exhausting to watch year after year. What is the point of phrases like “the consent of the governed” if such notions feel more like a fraud every day?

    If Ron Paul is not the nominee or on the ballot in November, I will not be voting. I refuse to be morally culpable for the actions of war mongers and socialists. I’d rather send up a prayer than submit a useless vote for more of the same.

  • I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11. And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars. Mr McClarey, you have not given any sound reason why Mr. Paul is wrong for opposing these wars. Why is Mr. Paul criticized for stating the truth about Iran? Israel has 300 nuclear warheads, and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspectors in. Israel would wipe Iran off the map in a matter of hours with a few of those missiles. Iran is no threat to Israel, and certainly not to America.

    Furthermore, as it happened — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe. The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe, knowing full well what atrocities had already been committed by that quintessential dictator. How many millions of Christians died at this man’s hands, while he was ruling Russia, whose Central Committee, by the way, was not Christian as you must know. Was Saddam Hussein any worse than Castro? If the state department was so concerned about toppling dictators, we’ve had one off the coast of Florida for half a century, Any oilk in Cuba? Any in China? What have these legitimate questions to do with being a “nutcase”?

  • I used to be a regular reader of the American Catholic blog, but eventually I got really turned off by certain contributors. Every so often I check in to see if things have changed, or if they are at lease tolerable and readable— this post disappoints me.
    The hate some people display for Ron Paul is disgusting in the extreme, particularly the name-calling.

    I think ‘disdain’, not ‘hate’, is what you see manifested. At worst, ‘contempt’.

    We often do not notice what does not cut, so it is advisable to maintain some rules-of-thumb concerning the features of what you say, and that is often honored in the breach, regrettably.

    (For my own part, I would be pleased to hear as a matter of routine discourse from the ranks of the Rockford Institute, The American Conservative, et al that was temperate without being supercilious. I ain’t holdin’ my breath).

  • “If Ron Paul is not the nominee or on the ballot in November, I will not be voting.”

    Thank you for allowing me to help you choose your President for you Anthony.

  • I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11.

    Who said it did?

    And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars.

    Yes, they were authorized. In addition to the resolutions authorizing them, Congress has appropriated the money every year to fight them.

    — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe. The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe, knowing full well what atrocities had already been committed by that quintessential dictator.

    The military situation on the ground would not have permitted a geographic distribution of control much different than the one with which we ended up.

    If I am not mistaken, 27% of the population of Poland perished between 1939 and 1945. Disagreeable as the United Workers’ Party rule was after 1946, I do not think it quite rose to that.

  • The attacks some people lob over to the libertarian-wing of the GOP only serve to cloud the intellectual truth.

    The shorter version of you comment: how dare you use Ron Paul’s own words to demonstrate that the man is a kook. Like most Ron Paul supporters, you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that the man goes well beyond supporting the issues that matter to you, and has a disgusting history of supporting insane conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers. As I said earlier, if you are that passionate about the superficial platform of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson offers an alternative that is not out to lunch.

  • Wow sounds like this group is pro-war pro-send the troops in unconstitutional wars from whims of a dictator (whoops I meant president) instead of going to Congress & asking for declarations of war. Pray tell me WHERE is this in the just war cause? Offensive wars? perpetual wars? Is that all in the catechism? All war does is promote the state. NOW Dr Paul DID say if attacked then go to Congress, get a declaration of war, win it, come home…. HOW IS THAT KOOKY?!?!?! Isn’t that logical? moral? or is nation building for decades & decades, building bases everywhere (140+ nations have our footstep in it… team america world police?), occupying other people’s lands (I’m suuuure you would be cool with a Chinese base or Russian base in your back yards huh), etc .. wait? aren’t we BROKE!? Pray tell me how you want to pay for more wars? I’d love to hear that one. Roman empire anyone? The sun never sets on the American Empire does it? Lets see we send troops to Australia to be ready to fight China (as we ask them for more $) hahaha. Someone tell me where the common sense is for that? Oh, why are the troops, overwhelmingly supporting Dr Paul? Do you people know more then the troops? If everyone had to pay for these wars from their own pockets & NOT thru the unconstitutional FED that prints money for your kids & their kids to pay for AND if every family HAD to send at least 1 to said wars (since most people don’t have anyone in the military yet they ‘support the troops’ yet don’t want them home with their families …. no matter the divorce rate among military or the stress nah we must keep them overseas away from our land they are defend) these wars would end overnight. But, alas, we are a blood thirsty union of states that love war (its good for ratings) & really don’t like the Constitution nor freedom (like how freedom sounds but the practice of it we don’t care much for – Joseph Schumpeter quote) & we act as if Israel is our 51st state which its own Prime Minister said to us ‘we don’t need you’ (yet we gave them $3bil but its enemies over $15Bil hahaha yet we claim how much we loooove Israel hahah). Now the WWII thing you may want to read up on that b/c FDR (like Wilson in WWI) did everything he could to get us into the war. There was no need for us going. Oh well ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ huh? nah we want never ending wars!

  • TAC contributors beware: the PaulBots have been upgraded with Logic Boards.

  • Not a single GOP nominee is any more than marginally “better” than Obama. Will the wars, the spending, or the social engineering end under any of these candidates? No.

    Dr. Paul would have to persuade the Republican caucus in the Senate to do away with the filibuster rule and then persuade both houses of Congress to a approve a raft of bills closing down over fifty independent agencies, three cabinet departments, the bulk of a fourth cabinet department, and portions of two other departments and two other agencies of consequence. That might just take care of the ‘social engineering’ and some of the low-hanging fruit under the rubric of ‘spending’. That’s the easy part. Best of luck.

  • Steve,

    Paragraphs and common-and-garden rules of punctuation, please.

  • “I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11.”

    Who said it did Brian? Why we went to war against Iraq is set forth at the link below:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

    “And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? ”
    Because the Taliban allowed the country to be the central base for the terrorists.

    “Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars.”

    Untrue. Congress through its authorization of the use of force votes authorized both of the wars prior to a shot being fired in either conflict.

    ” Mr McClarey, you have not given any sound reason why Mr. Paul is wrong for opposing these wars.”

    In regard to Iraq because Saddam was a clear and present danger to US interests in the region since his attempt to take over Kuwait in 1990. He also constantly violated the truce entered into which ended the Gulf War. Afghanistan because it was the central staging area for the terrorists.

    “Why is Mr. Paul criticized for stating the truth about Iran?”

    Because Paul is a loon who fails to recognize that the mullahs having the bomb is akin to tying a grenade to a gallon of gasoline and pulling the pin.

    “Israel has 300 nuclear warheads, and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspectors in. Israel would wipe Iran off the map in a matter of hours with a few of those missiles. Iran is no threat to Israel, and certainly not to America.”

    Israel is no threat to the US and the interests of the US. Iran on the other hand is, as demonstrated this week by its threat to attempt to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Neither Israel nor the US has an adequate defense to a nuke arriving by missile or smuggled into the country. Iranian agents have been known to enter this country both through Mexico and Canada.

    “Furthermore, as it happened — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe.”

    Simply not true. Far more people died during the war than in its aftermath in Eastern Europe.

    “The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe,”

    Complete bunk. The Red Army took Eastern Europe. The only way to get the Red Army out was to follow Patton’s advice, start World War III and expel the Red Army by force. The American public was in no mood to have World War III immediately follow World War II.

    “How many millions of Christians died at this man’s hands, while he was ruling Russia, whose Central Committee, by the way, was not Christian as you must know.”

    Actually Stalin was a bitter anti-Semite if you were trying to imply that the Central Committee was a bunch of Jews which is simple rubbish. Stalin’s hangmen who were of Jewish ancestry were no more practicing Jews than his hangmen of Christian ancestry, the vast majority, were practicing Christians. Khrushchev in his memoir wrote this about Stalin and Jews:

    “A hostile attitude toward the Jewish nation was a major shortcoming of Stalin’s. In his speeches and writings as a leader and theoretician there wasn’t even a hint of this. God forbid that anyone assert that a statement by him smacked of anti-Semitism. Outwardly everything looked correct and proper. But in his inner circle, when he had occasion to speak about some Jewish person, he always used an emphatically distorted pronunciation. This was the way backward people lacking in political consciousness would express themselves in daily life — people with a contemptuous attitude toward Jews. They would deliberately mangle the Russian language, putting on a Jewish accent or imitating certain negative characteristics [attributed to Jews]. Stalin loved to do this, and it became one of his characteristic traits”

    Stalin used the fact that his great enemy Trotsky had been born a Jew greatly to his advantage. Stalin would refer to him contemptuously as The King of the Jews.

    “Was Saddam Hussein any worse than Castro? If the state department was so concerned about toppling dictators, we’ve had one off the coast of Florida for half a century,”

    Bay of Pigs-been there, done that. We could not take out Castro due to his being under the Soviet nuclear shield. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Castro has been on his best behavior so as not to give us a casus belli, unlike Saddam. I personally think that Kennedy made a grave mistake in not toppling Castro in 1961 with a corp sized landing, instead of relying on the CIA and its brigade of exiles.

  • “TAC contributors beware: the PaulBots have been upgraded with Logic Boards.”

    They should get their money back Nate, because the boards appear to be defective.

  • ‘Wow sounds like this group is pro-war”

    Thank you Steve for a pitch perfect parody of a Paulbot ranting. Hilarious! The paranoia, the historical illiteracy, the jab at Israel, it is all there! Well done! Do carry on!

  • Speaking of logic, I find it fascinating when someone does attempt to make a logical argument on a blog. Usually people ignore it. It’s a lot easier to get a response with fallacious arguments and sensationalism.

    The other problem with logic, besides boring people, is that a logic-based discussion requires shared premises, and often derails into semantics over what seem like shared premises, but are not.

    It makes me wonder why people bother talking to one another at all about politics. Is it to persuade? Is it to have fun? Is it to self-justify?

    I think that the word Wackdoodle, loon, kook, wing-bat, nut-whatever, etc, do more damage to Ron Paul than all the sophisticated and well-reasoned arguments for a strong American overseas military presence.

    Anyway. The PaulBots can’t get their money back. The boards were made in China.

  • Some of the Ron Paul friendly commenters would do well to read (or re-read) this helpful guide.
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/06/12/how-not-to-appear-crazy-on-the-internet/

  • Combox to and fro Nate is rarely conducive to the calm logic say of the Angelic Doctor. Occasionally some nugget is set forth, but usually the cut and thrust of combox debate is for simple fun, which is certainly why I do it. Political speeches to convince do exist, and one of the masters of the art form was Abraham Lincoln, who spent his lifetime in a state, Illinois, that was largely hostile to the parties he supported, the Whigs and then the Republicans.

    For example, his explanation of what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase “all men are created equal” is a masterful exposition:

    “Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.”

    “Anyway. The PaulBots can’t get their money back. The boards were made in China.”

    Priceless! 🙂

  • I confess. This is my sin against charity.

    I find Paulbots less annoying than Obama-worshiping imbeciles.

    I’m not sure why.

    Maybe it is because Congressman Paul hasn’t had three years to wreck the economy.

    We should love PaulBots and Obama-worshiping morons because as long as they live the Holy Spirit may bring them to a better state of mind.

  • I have been a devout Catholic all my life and just found your website. Just WHO do you think you are! Ron Paul is NOT an “isolationist”. That term is being used to smear him, just like you whom I assume are a warmonger. Personal conversations with Dr. Paul, hardly!

    As the population is waking up, people like you will turn tail and run in the end. The biggest reason Ron is the #1 Public Enemy is because he is trying to educate the masses about how the FEDERAL RESERVE has been looting our money by printing endlessly since they were formed, and devaluing our currency which has caused a TREMENDOUS DOWNGRADE in our standard of living. Indeed, we should be richer than the Swiss, if it weren’t for the FEDs incessant looting over the years.

    Who is to blame? Ultimately, the politicians who have sneaked so many bills unbeknownst to the public that it isn’t funny. So much has slipped under the radar which has created havoc. You are simply WRONG in so much of what you say I can’t even get into it with you. But, Ron Paul said the ONLY WAR that was “justified” was WWII, so you are wrong on that.
    Furthermore, Ron Paul is the only reasonable candidate and the ONLY CANDIDATE THAT IS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, who is on THEIR SIDE!

    The rest of the pack are on the world elitists side, period.

  • Carl, your parody of a Paulbot rant isn’t bad, but unlike Steve you didn’t have a jab at Israel, which is really a must for any self-respecting Paulbot. On the other hand you do frequently have words in caps to underline Paulbot fervor so that is a plus. On the whole I do like Steve’s parody better, but I do give you points for effort!

  • “My prediction for 2012 Jay will again vote for Obama again.”

    Yeah, that’s me. Jay the Obama supporter. What a dumb-assed comment, TShaw. Moreso than your usual dumb-assed comment.

  • The thing is, you want a weathervane to point in the right direction. That’s its purpose.

    If Mitt Romney does nothing but act in his political interests with regard to social issues, he’ll do just fine. There’s no benefit to him in betraying the positions he currently holds. If anything, he’ll have to be more faithful to them than the average politician, because everyone’s got their eye on him. I don’t expect miracles from him, but he should be steady on issues such as abortion. I think he’ll be like Bush Sr., not passionate but consistent. (I know, you can shoot down that argument by pointing to
    Souter, but that could’ve happened on anyone’s watch.)

  • Pinky is right. Romney may not be as reliably conservative as I’d like, but he is smart and knows who he needs to butter his bread. Besides, I do think he leans right. I actually think he will be reliably socially conservative, but less of a small government conservative than I’d prefer. He actually will behave a lot like W in many respects, but his brain will keep him from being a little less confident and therefore a little less impulsive. Leaving aside constitutional questions, his MA position that all Americans should be required to purchase health insurance is ultimately grounded in a very pragmatic conservative view on free riders. While I would limit such insurance to catastrophic plans only, I bet that he would prefer that too, even if it would not sell in MA.

  • Doh! I ain’t so smart as youse guys . . .

  • ‘ Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.” ‘

    ‘ Maybe it is because Congressman Paul hasn’t had three years to wreck the economy.

    We should love PaulBots and Obama-worshiping morons because as long as they live the Holy Spirit may bring them to a better state of mind. ‘

    Hoping for a nut on the ballot and that wake-up call.

  • “The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with to deal with other nations with threats of violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity.” – Ron Paul

  • Thank you for that quote Jim. Few quotes from Doctor Delusional better illustrate the moral myopia of Paul than his comparison of US forces overseas with the occupation of Texas by Communist Chinese. Of course if Americans had followed the foreign policy rantings of Paul in the Nineteenth Century, Americans would never have entered Texas and revolted from Mexican rule, and Paul’s homestate would still be part of Mexico.

  • Congressman Paul is a nut and his policies if enacted could kill my gains.

    However, he’s right (for the wrong reasons) about the Fed and the central planners’/collectivists’ suppression of Americans’ financial “pursuit of happiness.”

    The value of the Federal Reserve Note is solely based on blind faith in Bernanke, Geithner, Reid, Boehner, and Obama. For your resident “Sheldon Coopers”, the formula is $Gld = 1/Trust in Obama, et al. Another real-life monetary portent: US Midwest farm land saw 71 Iowa cropland acres recently sell for $20,000 per.

    Here’s another symptom of financial insanity: investing $ in government securities which provide negligible (compared to interest rate risks, counter-party risks, etc.) yields while central bankers feverishly devalue currencies.

    The Fed is suppressing (or subverting) financial market functioning by flooding the system with FR Notes. Since 1913 in the US and earlier in Europe, centralized control over monetary systems by central planners has caused far more damage than any good.

    Never misunderestimate the insensibilities of congressmen, Fed Chmn., and presidents.
    The collectivists, credentialed geniuses with no experience in real world functioning, corrupt/idiotic congressmen and presidents, statists, etc. are accomplishing none of their “objectives” but are causing grave damage – asset/resource misallocations, devalued Federal Reserve Notes, no jobs, no GDP growth, etc, just debased setting the stage for another American tragedy.

    The so-called recovery is nothing but a stimulus induced “dead cat bounce.” Citizens and taxpayers will pay.

    Wall Street and I are now statist creatures . . . adapted to profit on the “fixed” game the politicians have set up FOR US.

    All the Fed QE’s and all the Operations Twist have done zilch for Main Street. I just totaled up my 2011 return.

    I vote for the Bernank “Man of the Year.”

  • “The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

    Between 1990 and 2002, there averaged a grand total of 6,200 American troops in Saudi Arabia. They were there at the invitation of that country’s government to fulfill a practical program of protecting them from their manifestly aggressive neighbor to the north. A troop force of 6,200 will suffice to subdue a recalcitrant population the size of Luxembourg’s. Saudi Arabia’s population was about 20x that. The troops were not obtrusively deployed and were offensive primarily to Osama bin Laden (living in Afghanistan) and Joseph Sobran (living in Northern Virginia).

    The last time I checked, we had 57,000 troops stationed in Germany and 35,000 in Japan. Why not ask Dr. Paul why we do not have crews of Germans and Japanese flying planes into office buildings in Manhattan?

  • TShaw, I let your comment go through, but you will resume your old moniker please. In regard to Jay Anderson and Obama, he is one of the few people I know who is more anti-Obama than I am.

  • “Why not ask Dr. Paul why we do not have crews of Germans and Japanese flying planes into office buildings in Manhattan?”

    Because there aren’t many Germans or Japanese who would for any cause. Fact is American troops aren’t popular in Germany or Japan or anywhere else in the world. Foreign troops are never popular except when fending off enemies in wartime.

  • “Because there aren’t many Germans or Japanese who would for any cause.”

    There sure were enough Japanese willing to fly planes into things in 1945 RR, and I believe the Germans had their own violent streak in 1939-45. By Doctor Delusional’s logic, our troops being in those nations for over 66 years should have made those countries bitter enemies of the US, which is simply not the case. Of course Paul also believes we should have sat out World War II, so perhaps he simply ignores our experience in those two nations, as he studiously ignores all inconvenient facts that clash with his isolationist ideology.

  • “And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

    And the Congressman answered:

    “No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

    Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.

    When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.

    I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.

    When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.

    “He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

    Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned.

    The Holocaust of World War II is not the only historical tragedy that Paul’s isolationism would disregard.

    In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

    Editors told me two years ago that they couldn’t believe Paul would respond in the same way to a question about the Holocaust, but I wasn’t surprised. Paul’s answer is actually consistent with much of what he’s been saying for years.”

    http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/

  • Fact is American troops aren’t popular in Germany or Japan or anywhere else in the world.

    ‘Sez who?

  • By Doctor Delusional’s logic, our troops being in those nations for over 66 years should have made those countries bitter enemies of the US, which is simply not the case.

    It is a chronic problem in and among the palaeosectaries that their assessment of political conflict is composed of deductions from the same false premise: that conflict is something we can turn on and off at the source by making discretionary decisions, decisions which are invariably congruent with principles of small government and fidelity to the Founders, blah blah. This leads to some very peculiar commentary at times. (The prize would be Joseph Sobran’s remarks on the bombing of a U.S. Navy ship taking on fuel in Yemen in 1998: something to be expected and deserved because we have no business having Navy ships traveling through the Indian Ocean).

  • Art, says the German and Japanese public. Though the rise of China and the nuclearization of North Korea has caused the militarily-unprepared Japanese to look more favorably on US troops. The unpopularity of foreign troops is a fact that most Americans are unfortunately ignorant of.

  • RR my brother led an armor platoon in Nato in Germany in the early eighties. He told me that he encountered less hostility in Germany from German civilians than he did in the US. I think this story is pretty typical about the basically good relations between most Germans and the US troops in Germany:

    http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/germany/closing-of-bases-in-mannheim-ends-special-relationship-between-germans-u-s-troops-1.144258

    Marriage between our troops in Germany and German women has been so common that the US Army has this site:

    http://www.21tsc.army.mil/Aerja/LegalAssist/Areas-Family%20Law/Marr-Germany.html

  • Opposition to foreign troops doesn’t necessary show itself in open hostility. Unless there’s some major incident involving US troops, it’s not a preoccupation. Plus, the primary interaction that foreign troops have with locals is in the troop-friendly areas around bases. Not at all representative of the general public. It’s kind of like illegal immigration in the US. People have strong views but you don’t see many hate crimes against illegal immigrants and it isn’t something people concern themselves with on a daily basis.

  • The truth is RR that the world is a complicated place and different nations have responded differently to the presence of US forces among them in different ways. Germany has been overall quite friendly to US forces. South Koreans have been fairly hostile to the Americans who kept them from being slaves under North Korean rule. Most Iraqis were quite hostile to Americans being present, outside of the Kurdish areas which were quite pro-American. The Italians looked upon American troops as long lost cousins. This type of complexity is completely foreign to the ideological makeup of Ron Paul.

  • Well I thank the kind gentlemen for the name calling towards me (yet provide no evidence but the media industrial complex’s claims of jabbing Israel haha). Pray tell me how he (or I) have ‘jabbed’ Israel? The problem is you probably then would not want to click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljxQn5nm8A unless Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also ‘jabbing Israel’ (whoops he says ‘we don’t need US help’ soooo is he anti-Israel?). Pray tell me how giving billions more to Israel’s enemies is being friendly towards Israel? (Can not wait to hear your responses to that). Here’s a great video on “Ron Paul & Israel” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3N0s_Ibau4 I would loooooove to hear your responses to this.

    So far none of our arguments have been broken, but plenty of name calling has been thrown out at us & someone had absolutely nothing so he became an english professor haha.

    1) are we broke? If so then pray tell me HOW DO YOU GUYS want to pay for the never ending wars, the empire, the unconstitutional wars?

    2) are you pro constitution? If so wouldn’t you side with CONSTITUTIONAL wars? & not wars via whims of a dictator in chief? (we give waaaay too much power to a man that isn’t to have much power)

    3) Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    4) Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage (more Catholic then the Catholic ones on stage) yet he is getting called names. Wow. Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage (its a church thing) & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    5) How is war a good thing to all? Wouldn’t we want troops home with their familes? They have a huge divorce rate; wouldn’t we want to help save their marriages? Being away in other people’s lands & not home is hard on families (be pro family & pro troop…. yet again nobody answered why are the troops in favor of Dr Paul?)

    6) Rome fell via debt & wars (sound familiar? Lets keep it up huh)

    7) Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    8) former concentration camp member, Joseph Schumpeter, who escaped Hitler’s Germany as a Jew, wrote “that people love the sound of freedom, they love the way it sounds, & in the abstract they support it. But when it comes to the actual practice of living free & experiencing freedom, they don’t much care for that. Liberty is hard”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=share <-dedicated to the troops! Be careful there are history lessons in this too.

    Pax Christi (didn't Christ say 'blessed are the peacemakers? … did we just sell missles to the Middle East? I'm sure they will never fall in hands of any enemy right?)

  • Well done Steve! You must have seen my comment regarding Carl’s Paulbot parody post and, the competitive juices flowing, you submitted another entry. This time you included phrases in caps and included more Paulbot jargon, for example “dictator-in-chief” and “media industrial complex”, and upped your historical illiteracy quotient by your brief digression stating that Rome fell because of debts and wars. Yes, this definitely puts you in the lead for champion Paulbot parody creator! I eagerly await more entries.
    Next time you might try to work in an artful defense of Paul calling Gaza a concentration camp:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-undeniable-war-on-israel/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

    Remember, in your defense of Paul, alway use “Zionist” and never use “Jew”.

  • So far none of our arguments have been broken, but plenty of name calling has been thrown out at us

    There have been plenty of arguments made, with backup proof offered – usually simply using Ron Paul’s words against him – but like most Paulites, you just ignore them.

    someone had absolutely nothing so he became an english professor haha.

    Though this is merely a blog and not an academic conference, you should still present your arguments in a reasonably coherent manner. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then learn how to write.

    As for your first two points, the major theater of war now that we have substantially pulled out of Iraq is Afghanistan. You know who voted to authorize said war, along with just about every other member of Congress? Dr. Ron Paul. Maybe you should ask the good doctor how he plans to pay for the “unconstitutional” war that he helped authorize.

    Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    Define sound economics? Pipe dreams about the gold standard may sound fanciful to the untrained ear, but it’s just that – a pipe dream.

    Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage

    Ron Paul believes that the decision over the legalization of abortion should be left to the states. Rick Santorum would push for a federal amendment to ban abortion throughout the country. Rick Perry, I believe, also advocates such an amendment. I’d say that Santorum has the edge there.

    Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage (its a church thing) & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    The fact that you cannot see the dissonance between the first sentence in your paragraph and this quoted section speaks volumes.

    How is war a good thing to all?

    War is sometimes preferable to the alternative. If you think that war is always to be avoided at all costs, at least give up the farce that you are simply a non-interventionist and not a pacifist or an isolationist.

    Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    A stupid question, but for the sake of playing your game:
    Rick Santorum. See a about 26 and 46 seconds.

    Rick Perry said it and was mocked for it.

    And on and on and on. Of course, rhetoric about liberty is meaningless, as are most of your points.

  • By the way, for any other Ron Paul fans still out there, I’m just curious what they think about Cynthia McKinney. You know, the person that Ron Paul supported for president 4 years ago.

  • 1) are we broke? If so then pray tell me HOW DO YOU GUYS want to pay for the never ending wars, the empire, the unconstitutional wars?

    a. We are not broke. The problem is excessive public sector borrowing and attendant future interest charges. Solving that problem requires a thorough review of public expenditure, not merely the 14% of public expenditure which is allocated to the military, most especially when the functions performed by the military are not replicable by the private sector or by local governments.

    b. We have been involved in five separate conflicts since 1945; the constitution was not violated in fighting them; one is ongoing and the other four had discrete termini.

    c. There is no empire. The United States has not since 1848 absorbed contiguous territory populated by foreigners and had a notable portfolio of overseas dependencies only between 1898 and 1946. Ninety percent of the population of those dependencies was to be found in the Philippines, which we never intended to keep permanently and which we relinquished over sixty years ago.

    2) are you pro constitution? If so wouldn’t you side with CONSTITUTIONAL wars? & not wars via whims of a dictator in chief? (we give waaaay too much power to a man that isn’t to have much power)

    All of the wars we have fought since 1945 have been authorized by a combination of congressional resolutions and appropriations bills.

    3) Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    Dr. Paul’s proposed monetary system is favored only by a small corps of eccentrics within the economics profession. Again, the history of this country between the fall of 1929 and the spring of 1933 should cure anyone of a hankering for a specie-based currency. We can do quite well without it and it is a disaster under certain circumstances.

    4) Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage (more Catholic then the Catholic ones on stage) yet he is getting called names. Wow.

    He isn’t.

    Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage

    That’s about as practical as saying government should not be involved in demarcating property.

    & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    Please sober up.

    5) How is war a good thing to all? Wouldn’t we want troops home with their familes? They have a huge divorce rate; wouldn’t we want to help save their marriages? Being away in other people’s lands & not home is hard on families (be pro family & pro troop…. yet again nobody answered why are the troops in favor of Dr Paul?)

    There are times when you do not have better options. Serious students of history understand that and the implications of that. Ron Paul’s assessments are an inane exercise in let’s pretend.

    6) Rome fell via debt & wars (sound familiar? Lets keep it up huh)

    Historians of late antiquity and the early medieval period have run through several cycles attempting to explain the political history of Rome. The most current is that the motor of decline was an autonomous demographic implosion that went on for about 400 years.

    7) Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    You can’t be serious.

  • Hmmm, when it comes to balancing the budget Ron Paul has no plan to touch Medicare or Social Security, and in regard to cuts in defense spending he doesn’t seem to have a clue as to how much we are spending. Color me shocked.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ron-paul-great-societys-great-defender_615036.html

  • Ron Paul’r problem with balancing the budget is on the revenue side. He wants all federal revenue derived from tariffs. Libertarians should be appalled.

    Santorum recently raised a good point. In 20 years, Ron Paul managed to get just one of his bills passed. It’s safe to say that he won’t be able to do anything domestically. Where the president has unilateral power is foreign policy and Paul would bring every troop home on his first day in office. He’s useless talking about anything else.

  • Sorry I had to keep myself from hurting myself laughing so hard from hearing that we are fighting constitutional wars & that we aren’t broke.
    Hey how has that federal solution to end abortion been working out? Not so well huh?

    Maybe if we allowed states to end it (which many many many would) we would be close to ending it but alas people think federal solutions is the answer for everything & nothing ever gets done (just like we made marriage a federal issue now look at it. Congrats).

    Morals should never be up for a vote (how is that sober up issue? Why should morals ever be up for a vote?)

    So how are we not an empire? The sun never sets on this empire, we are in 140+ nations. What are we then? Oh & how in your world did Rome collapse? Their games didn’t have HD telecasts?

    Again somehow you guys think we are in constitutional wars (this shows the genius of the commenters in here along with thinking we aren’t broke hahahahahhaha keep thinking that one).

    Hey keep up the name calling its awesome 🙂 also continue to think the Constitution is being followed & that the neo-cons are the ones to vote for (let the media industrial complex tell the sheeple how to vote.)

    I would bet the farm you guys didn’t click on any link provided, but thats what I love about you guys. Enjoy serfdom!

  • Courtesy Dr. Paul’s web flacks:

    He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

    An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

    To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

    Congress has no power to impose an income tax, but he favors repeal of the 16th Amendment because that grants Congress the power to do….?

    He will have to abrogate a raft of international trade agreements for Congress to be able to make use of tariffs as anything more than the smallest of supplements to federal revenue. Current tariff and excise revenue amounts to something on the order of 0.4% of gross domestic product, so the necessary cuts to public expenditure would have to be ‘massive’ indeed.

  • Ah, Steve now you are merely repeating your Paulbot parody. Your entry is secure, and you do not have to keep repeating the themes of historical illiteracy and constitutional ignorance which have already been well established in your earlier entries. Calling everyone who does not blindly follow Doctor Delusional a serf was a nice touch, but overall your parody this time was merely the same old same old.

  • This website is a joke calling itself a “Catholic perspective”

  • JC, you will have to do much better than that if you wish to compete in the Paulbot parody rant contest. The snark was certainly there, but you need to have much more than that.

Predictions for 2012

Thursday, December 29, AD 2011

Time for my annual predictions for the coming year, once again boldly going where angels, although not fools, fear to tread:

1.  The GOP will retain the House in the 2012 elections.  Both parties in the House assume that is going to happen, as nine Democrats, most of them  veteran members, are retiring, to zip for the GOP.

2.  The GOP will gain the Senate.   21 Democrats, 10 Republican and 2 Independent seats are up, and the GOP only needs to flip 4, or 3 if they win the White House.  I see the GOP flipping Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Nebraska and North Dakota, with possibles in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia.  I see the Democrats flipping Massachusetts with a possible in Nevada.

3.  Despite a lacklustre group of candidates I do believe that the GOP will gain the White House.  The economy is simply too dismal for this election to be anything except a referendum on Obama’s stewardship of the economy, and I do not think that all the campaign money and friendly media in the world can transform this particular pig’s ear into a silk purse.  Jay Cost, one of the best political analysts extant, has a good article here detailing the odds against Obama.  Heaven knows that missteps by the GOP could help Obama a great deal, but at the end I think there are just too many people who believe the country is on the wrong track for Obama to win.

4.  A repeat from last year:  either North Korea or Iran will go through a violent revolution that will topple one of the regimes in 2012.

5.  A major terrorist incident will occur in the United States during the coming year as the jihadists attempt some payback for Osama, and as the factions among the terrorists jockey for power.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Predictions for 2012

  • I agree with most of these, Don, except #3. I unfortunately believe Obama will pull off a win based mainly on independent voters, even though they do believe the country is on the wrong track, ultimately deciding to go with the devil they know in preference to the devil they don’t know, particularly if the devil they don’t know is one of those awful, looney right wingers (as portrayed by the media).

    I would add the following:

    11. A persistent La Nina weather pattern in the Pacific will mean yet another year of wild weather including tornado outbreaks, flooding and continued drought in the southern Plains. This means more billion-dollar weather disasters (though hopefully, not nearly as many deaths), more frantic scrambling for FEMA funding, and also….

    12. Even more hysterical insistence by AGW advocates that global warming/climate change is to blame, never mind the continued real scientific evidence against it.

  • This one is getting my nerves because it has been a persistent prediction of Obama-haters since 2008:

    “A major terrorist incident will occur in the United States during the coming year …”

    Partisans insisted that they knew for a fact that major terrorist incident would occur the moment Obama stepped into the office, so we all had better vote Republican or we’re dead. Obviously, the threat is real, but I don’t see that is more real with a Democratic president or less real with a Republican president, or that Obama somehow doesn’t care one way or another about terrorism on US soil. And it irks me that none of these partisans is stepping up to the plate to admit the bogusness of their prediction.

  • Well Spambot we have had a major terrorist incident in the US under Obama already, the Fort Hood massacre. The Obama Defense Department has characterized this act of terrorism as being an example of workplace violence:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/

    In any case my prediction has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with how I think the jihadists will react eventually to the taking out of Bin Laden and the power vacuum that has created.

  • #1 & #2, yes, it’s highly unhighly Republicans won’t control both houses.

    3. I think Romney will be president but I acknowledge that’s wishful thinking. Objectively, Obama has a slight edge. Economy has improved somewhat, the Republican brand is hurting, and I think a third party would hurt Romney more than Obama.

    4. No, Iran or North Korea will not fall.

    5. No major Islamist terrorist attack in the US. It’s been 10 years already. No reason to believe this will be the year.

    6. The Euro will survive, without a doubt.

    7. Eric Holder will not resign.

    9. Ron Paul will not run third party but Gary Johnson will and get a sizable chunk of the vote which would hurt Romney more than Obama.

    11. Ron Paul will win Iowa, followed by Romney and Santorum.

    12. Marco Rubio will be Romney’s running mate.

    13. Assad will no longer be president of Syria.

    14. There will be minor market liberalization in North Korea.

    15. South Korea will elect its first female president, Park Geun-hye, a conservative.

    16. Another congressman will be caught in a sex scandal.

    17. Dark Knight Rises will be the highest grossing movie of the year.

  • “12. Marco Rubio will be Romney’s running mate.”

    Either he or Bob McConnell of Virginia will be the running mate of the eventual Republican nominee. If Obama loses either state he is in deep kimchi.

    “14. There will be minor market liberalization in North Korea.”
    I doubt it. When Stalinist regimes start letting up there is a danger that the regime could start unraveling. I think instead Fearless Leader III will follow a Rehoboam strategy and I hope he gets a Rehoboam result.

    “16. Another congressman will be caught in a sex scandal.”
    And in other predictions the sun will rise in the east all next year!

  • 18. Romney will be the GOP presidential nominee.

    19. The Occupy Wall Street crowd will attempt to stage protests at both political conventions, to the delight of the GOP and the chagrin of the Democrats.

    20. Unemployment will still be over 8% on election day.

    21. The Euro will continue to teeter throughout the year, with France and Germany putting forward further proposals for fiscal union in an attempt to shore up the structure. This will fuel nationalist movements in France in particular, and resentment in Germany. Unrest over austerity measures will grow in Greece, Italy and Spain, and those who envision a United States of Europe will begin to remember that it a took a civil war to cement the United States of America into a union — and this with states with a common language and much less history of division.

  • #17 – Don’t forget the trilogy rule: the first one is good, the director outdoes himself with the sequel, and the studio ruins the third one. The Dark Knight Rises will do well, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets beaten by The Hobbit.

    #12 – Another thing that wouldn’t surprise me is some talk about General Petraeus for VP (not that I’m advocating one way or the other).

  • –States of the Euro-periphery will impose exchange controls, a bank holiday, and quantitative limits on withdrawals subsequent to the holiday. All the Euro notes produced by their local printing plants will have distinguishing red stamps placed on them during the bank holiday and all other Euro notes will but treated as foreign currency from then on. Greece and Ireland will suspend payments on their public debt.

    — There will be a catastrophic banking crisis in the Eurozone states. Their banks are too big to bail and have generally failed to make use of the last three years to improve their capital cushions. Re-pricing of sovereign debt issues will render ~30% of the banking sector insolvent.

    –An economic contraction in output of 13% or so will ensue in Eurozone countries

    –The Chinese financial sector will be systemically distressed by an implosion of real-estate prices. There will be knock-on effects in China’s real economy.

    –Euro trouble and China trouble will cause knock-on effects of uncertain severity in Britain, the United States, &c., but the conduit of transmission will not be the domestic financial sector.

    –The Senate rules providing for the practice of the filibuster will remain in effect during the 113th Congress.

    –B.O. will fall to any Republican with a claim to being presentable (i.e. someone other than Dr. Paul, Dr. Gingrich, or Mrs. Bachmann).

    –Harry Reid will continue to be godawful.

    –Republican presidential candidates and congressional leadership will continue to pretend that our fiscal deficits can and must be addressed without tax increases.

    —-

    –We’d best hope that the first six suppositions are wrong. The last two are a near certainty.

Ave Atque Vale Cheeta

Wednesday, December 28, AD 2011

One of the last remaining survivors of the Golden Age of Hollywood has passed away:

It is with great sadness that the community has lost a dear friend and family member on December 24, 2011,” the Suncoast Primate Sanctuary in Palm Harbor announced on its website.

Cheetah had performed in Tarzan The Ape Man (1932) and Tarzan And His Mate (1934), classic films about a man reared in the jungle starring Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O’Sullivan.

The chimpanzee – who arrived at the sanctuary in 1960 – loved finger-painting and watching football and was soothed by Christian music, the sanctuary’s outreach director Debbie Cobb told the Tampa Tribune.

Back in the Sixties the old Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies were replayed endlessly on TV, and as a boy I loved them.  Completely inaccurate as to Africa, and with plots as skimpy as some of the costumes worn by Maureen O’Sullivan as Jane, they were always good, and, not infrequently, hilarious entertainment.  I have always treasured Tarzan’s commentary on the legal system in Tarzan’s New York Adventure (1942) where an evil circus owner is attempting to use the courts to win custody of Boy:

Continue reading...

Putting Their Mouths Where Their Money Could Be

Tuesday, December 27, AD 2011

So much for the “patriotic millionaires” trotted out by the Democrats calling for higher taxes.  The dirty little secret of course is that the truly mega rich have elaborate tax planning to avoid paying one thin dime more than they have to in regard to taxes.  An increase in rates would have little impact on them.  If they were truly patriotic they would be calling for some variant of a flat tax on all income with the elimination of all tax shelters.  The poster child for this call by the very wealthy for higher taxes is Warren Buffet.  Gee Warren, maybe you could start by having your company pay the billion the Feds say it owes.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Putting Their Mouths Where Their Money Could Be

  • I wonder if any others ask with me whether this topic is suitable for a CNS blog. The believer has a legitimate, necessary we can add, interest in how each person or group pays a just, fair and unselfish share of contributing to the common good in taxes and charitable contributions and establishing Foundations to promote charity and the arts and sciences. But is it our role to decide which, by whom and how much. Or do we vote for and lobby for a common set of Christian Humanist values and do end-runs to head off the greedy pigs at the Global Village trough?

  • When the Church went “all in” for the welfare state, it ceded to the state its moral claim on my “charity.” Seems it’s the excuse for ignoring many evils the government works.

    Patriotic millionaires? How many, like Pat Tillman, enlisted in the Rangers or infantry after their country was attacked?

  • they would be calling for some variant of a flat tax on all income with the elimination of all tax shelters.

    Would it be any less patriotic to have a progressive tax on all income with the elimination of all tax shelters?

  • Perhaps Kurt, although I suspect the “patriotic millionaires” would be appalled by either suggestion. The only millionaire I suspect who ever actually wanted to pay more in taxes was the fictional Jed Clampett.

Remembrance of Predictions Past 2011

Tuesday, December 27, AD 2011

 

Well, as the end of the year looms, it is time for me to review the predictions for the year 2011 that I made at the end of 2010.  Predictions for 2012 will be forthcoming after I eat some crow here:

 

1.  The global warming scam/sham will continue to unravel.  I only hope we recall this episode the next time elites around the globe use junk science as an excuse in order to attempt to remake civilization.

True.  We had the second release of e-mails on climate gate.  Canada withdrew from the Kyoto accords and almost all other nations appear to be ignoring them.  The UN Climate Conference which recently concluded put off doing anything to reduce carbon levels until 2020.

2.  The Republicans in the House will put a halt to Obama’s legislative agenda, and Obama will veto most bills originating in the House that make it to his desk.

Yes and No.  The House Republicans have put a stop to Obama’s legislative agenda, but they have not been able to get any of their own agenda through the Senate.

3.  There will be considerable friction between the GOP in the House and the Republican Rinos in the Senate.

Yes, and you can triple underline that prediction!

4.  The economy will begin to improve with unemployment ending the year around 7.5%.

Perhaps a very slight improvement, but unemployment is still at a ghastly 8.6%.

5.  Either the North Korean or the Iranian government will be toppled in a violent overthrow.

Not yet, but the signs are not good for either regime.  In the spring Iraq weathered a bout of huge protest marches and riots.  Now, Iran is undergoing constant huge explosions and sabotage.  Who is behind this?  Israel, the US, internal opposition, all of the above?  No one knows, but the inability of the Iranian regime to put a stop to it is a hot topic of conversation throughout Iran.

In regard to North Korea the latest Fearless Leader has bitten the dust, and his son, Fearless Leader III, is apparently not completely in control yet.  North Korea could blow at any time, or it could remain a Stalin museum peace for decades.  One safe prediction is that when it falls, it will be swift and bloody:  think Ceaucescu in Romania in 1989.  The problem for us with that analogy is that Ceaucescu, unlike the Stalinists in charge in North Korea, did not have nuclear weapons at his beck and call.  I hope the South Koreans have been attempting to bribe the relevant North Korean generals to act to keep the powers that be in North Korea from taking Seoul with them when they go.

6.  Republican controlled legislative chambers around the country will pass pro-life bills, continuing the process of chipping away at Roe.

True.  Go here for a rundown on some of the legislation.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Remembrance of Predictions Past 2011

  • 1. When you’re looking to validate your own predictions, you’re more conscious of confirming data than contradictory data. One of the biggest climate change stories of the year was Richard Muller’s attempt to correct for pro-CC bias and subsequent discovery that the advertised conclusions were still fairly close.

    5. Highly doubtful that Seoul has any contact with high level DPRK officials. North Korea should never have been allowed to obtain nukes. Now there’s no going back. The best case scenario is China-style market liberalization of a totalitarian nuclear state.

    6. The biggest abortion law story of the year was the defeat of the personhood amendment in Mississippi.

    11. I think this year proved that Europe will hang on to the Euro at all costs. You’ll get quantitative easing before any talk of the Euro’s demise.

  • 4. Real unemployment, restore innumerable victims of Obama policies to the denominator, is north of 12%. The underemployment rate is about 20%.

    10. If there were justice, Holder would be in prison. “Without justice, government is mass brigandage.” St. Augustine.

    11. The euro will exist. But, it’ll take 100 of ’em for a litre of bier. That is economic tragedy!

    FYI: The US taxpayer is indirectly (the Fed) “on the hook”, i.e., at risk for at least $81 billion in euro/dollar swaps paid by the Fed. It could easily run to hundreds of billions if Bernanke and Obama are not stopped.

    Two weeks ago they pulled off the “Long-Term Refinancing Operation” wherein 523 broke banks borrowed (low cost, three years) $640 billion from the European Central Bank to cover deposit runs. The 523 banks posted collateral basically worthless PIIGS sovereign debt securities as collateral. Kicked that can three years down the road. It does nothng to solve the problems.

    1. There will never again be a significant snowfall in the NYC Metro area. That has nothing to do with climate change. It’s because our sons combined their money and bought us a snow blower – six forward, two reverse gears- fancier than my ride. I said they could have saved hundreds of dollars and bought Mother a new snow shovel.

    Also, the ideologues’ research is aimed at supporting the chimera that CC is man-affected so man can be controlled and forced to live like slaves. Their research supports what they believe will achieve their ideology: saddle man with (high fuel and food prices) so they can take away his liberty and property.

    College profs and scientists have been taught what to believe: ideology, not how to think. Their research is aimed at supporting the cause not finding the truth.

  • RR-
    Richard Muller’s shtick isn’t exactly conflict-free– his co-author is calling shenanigans, and seems rather…peeved that he pushed misleading information into the papers before the study was even peer reviewed. Seems the press releases just happened to come out while anyone who would nay-say was under confidentiality agreements.

  • Seems to me that the more legitimate doubts are raised about global warming/climate change, the more hysterically pushy the pro-climate change crowd gets:

    http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-12-16-new-approach-to-climate-deniers-launch-them-into-space

Is this where Protestantism is headed in the United States?

Monday, December 26, AD 2011

A recently released LifeWay Research report indicates that 10% of Protestant pastors did not plan to hold services on Christmas Day.  Commenting upon this finding, the President of LifeWay Research, Ed Stetzer, said:

Having church on Christmas Day when it falls on a Sunday seems as if it would be as much of a given as having Thanksgiving on a Thursday, but this has been an issue of discussion and contention in recent years.  Also, just because an overwhelming majority of pastors think that way doesn’t mean those in their congregations necessarily share their perspective.

 

The data are worth contemplating:

  • 6% of Protestant churches planned to have a Christmas Eve service, but no service on Christmas Day.  28% planned to have service on Christmas Day, but no service on Christmas Eve.  63% planned to hold services on both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.  Compared to other regions of the nation, Protestant pastors in the South are the least likely (62%) to hold Christmas Eve services.
  • Full-time (71%) and part-time (74%) pastors are more likely to be planning a Christmas Eve service than bivocational or volunteer (53%) pastors.  Pastors identifying themselves as “mainline” (87%) are more likely to have a service on Christmas Eve compared to those identifying themselves as Evangelical (70%).
  • Nearly as many Protestant pastors plan to host services on New Year’s Day (88%) as Christmas Day (91%).  26% are planning for their church to hold services on New Year’s Eve.
  • 74% of Americans agree (strongly or somewhat) that “Christmas is primarily a day for religious celebration and observance.”  But, 67% agree that, “Many of the things I enjoy during the Christmas season have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.”

 

Is this snapshot in time an anomaly or does it portend what will become a trend?  What may be going on here?

The Motley Monk offers two interpretations:

  1. Secularism: “Christmas” has become “Giftmas.”  Electronic devices, snacks, and food provide the glue binding families together   Having everything we want, who needs the Incarnation?
  2. Me and My God – We’re fine with each other:  Like it or not, the liturgies planned for the “domestic church” are far more meaningful to many people today.  Celebrating the Christmas and Easter liturgies as well as Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving Day liturgies at home builds up the domestic church.  And don’t forget the mega-liturgy of Super Bowl Sunday!  Requiring attendance at church on a family day is nothing but a man-made legalism, forcing people to focus upon an institution and contributing big collections than it is about authentic worship of God.

 

Where these two ideas hold sway, it makes sense that pastors would limit the number of worship services.  After all, many have families of their own!

But, as this idea takes root in a congregation, it is likely to become engrained as an attitude in young people.  In a generation or two, public worship on Christmas Day (and Easter Sunday) becomes an artifact of a quaint but bygone era.

 

Golfing is a form of worship as is community service

 

These results reveal nothing new to The Motley Monk.  It’s an attitude held by many of his European friends who identify themselves as Christian.  For them, celebrating Christmas and Easter are important family liturgies that do not require attending church services.  These friends assert that “spirituality” is a very important part of their lives but is entirely unrelated to belonging to or practicing any institutional form of religion.

The Motley Monk respectfully disagrees.  This attitude slowly erodes families and society of the important moral values that religion and religious practices inculcate.

How long will it before Festivus replaces Christmas so that no one will be offended?

 

 

Let the discussion begin…

 

 

To read the LifeWay article, click on the following link:
http://www.lifeway.com/Article/LifeWay-Research-Pastors-plan-to-host-Christmas-services-despite-busyness-of-Christmas-Day

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Is this where Protestantism is headed in the United States?

  • I have family members who attend one of the mega-Church rock-n-roll Bible schools here in the Detroit area, and they went to Christmas service on Thursday. I don’t believe their place of “me-ship” held Christmas day services.

    So much for “keeping holy the Lord’s Day”…

    Once, one of them told me that Christmas is “all about the family”. I beg to differ. To them, it seems Christmas has become “don’t inconvenience me and my family”.

  • I’m burned out already– ANY objection to creeping removal of religion is mean spirited, didn’t you know?

  • TV and internet buying and the contradictory Anonymous Social Circles of the social media are puching us more and more and more toward isolation. Public worship requires the sacrifice and discomfort of rubbing shoulders aand off-key singing – but also puts us in touch with the elderly, the young family, the single, the widowed and divorced, challenging our human isolation as well as the challenge of the Gospel, Paul’s letters and the homily. Droppping Sunday worship except for natural dsasters drives more into private non-liturgical rituals and to the prison of the addictive prison of the fake interaction with nameless atavars and “cuddlybear” and “Iamnotreal” and other lonely heart club subscribers!” When Protestantsim dropped weekly COMMUNION for 30 minute essays back there for too many congregations, why bother with church, we can read the Bible at home! was the next step.

  • It’s interesting that yesterday may have been the Sunday with the lowest attendance at Protestant services and the highest at Catholic Mass.

    I didn’t even notice that my Protestant friends didn’t attend service on Christmas until you mentioned it. I think a major factor is that Protestant services aren’t interchangeable. A Catholic away from home, finds the nearest Catholic church. A Protestant away from home thinks, “I can’t go to church.” With so many Americans away for the holidays, there’s nobody to fill the pews. Then there’s the whole holy day of obligation aspect. Honestly, when I’m hungover or it’s cold and raining, not having to go to confession for skipping Mass does provide an extra push.

  • A few factors to consider: Despite the growth of mega-churches, most Protestant churches are still small compared to Catholic parishes. They are unlikely to have both a Christmas eve and a Christmas day service. For Protestant churches with a liturgical tradition, people will be drawn to the symbolism of the event and thus are probably more likely to choose Christmas eve. Non-liturgical Protestant churches almost universally steer away from evening services. It was unheard of in the Baptist circles I grew up in.

    Also, for many Protestants, especially non-liturgical, church is no more than a place for fellowship and learning. Thus, it can be done on any day and if family events interfere with church, so be it. Not surprisingly, Christmas is going to be one of those busy times.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • This is all an attack on traditional values, in exchange for society’s promotion of political correctness. Yuk! This does the same or worse as when prayer was removed from the public schools. The secularists are trying to remove any mention of God and moral truths from the public sphere. These people who only believe in spirituality but not a formal religion do this so they can form their own version of religion in order to fill their selfish whims, wants, and perceived needs. Moral relativism run amok…

  • I had read earlier that this would happen but I never thought it would happen here, in our beloved Kenya. But I was shocked, as I down Downtown to my Parish – The Holy Family Minor Basilica in the Centre of Nairobi City – the Seat of the Head of the Catholic Church in Kenya, His Eminence, John Cardinal Njue. We drive past the most popular and the main Pentecostal Church in this country. Usually, that area becomes a “drive very, very carefully zone” on Sundays. But on this Sunday – Christ’s Birthday Holy Day – there was no activity whatsoever in this Mega-Protestant Church. I was horrified. What kind of Christianity do these Pentecostal and Evangelical Denominations follow?

  • This is a little tricky. I went to Mass on the vigil, and I would probably say yes to “many of the things I enjoy during the Christmas season have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.” Maybe “many” is too strong because a lot of Christmas folderol irritates me, and one could argue that there are no moments in the life of a Christian that have “nothing to do” with Jesus’s birth, but the survey statement strikes me as meaning “I like ham and trees”. Would I be interpreted as a secularist according to this analysis?

  • Pinky: Our gift for this and all of life’s choives is discernment. Reality is that the CHURCH baptised the pagan Winter Solstice festivities. The world has replaced the JESUS event with the “tinselitis” . We can fuss-cuss that out as Puritanism did in the Colonies did and their descendants still do by condemning the commercialism. OR we can celebrate Advent with quiet waiting, “Mary-pondered in her heart” time and include the poor and lonely in our sharing and caring- and keep it up year-round. The world and its produce and gifts are GOOD since God made them. The discernment comes in deciding if we take time, energy and make some sacrifice to worship at home as individuals or families and on Sundays and holydays. Then the abundant food, gifts and celebrations will fall into place, in perspective because we have discerned wisely at this sacred season and throughout the liturgical year. Each month my bank account automaticallly gives charitable gifts to worthy causes and groups to reflect my Caholic Christian values before I pay for anything else. I must add that the malls ring out with sacred Christmas music in the midst of the craziness of sales and shoppers! Hope and pray this is helpful

  • This is a very ill-informed post. Much of Protestantism had no tradition of either “Holy Days” nor “Vigil”. But Catholic influence has in recent decades lead them to the Christmas Eve service. It has become so popular in some Protestant churches that when Christmas falls on a Sunday, that is their Christmas Sunday service, just as many Catholics will attend Midnight Mass.

  • I don’t understand the snark about the president going to church. Catholic hatred runs deep of this president. It was unnecessary for this topic.

  • Heaps of techy presents underneath the Winter Giving Fir……still reflect the ultimate Gift, so they’ll never win this war. Wayyyy more “Merry Christmas” than “Happy Holidays” in the email inbox—from online stores, I mean—and “Seasons Greetings” seems to be a quaint relic, what happened there? “Holidays” being “Holydays,” I’d think the secularistas would seize on “Seasons.”
    One eco-type store’s “Winter Solstice Sale” gave me a good laugh, though.

  • Snark?

    POTUS claims to be a Protestant. POTUS did not attend “services” on Christmas, but did liberate 4 sea turtles. He is the poster boy what those 10% of Protestant pastors are catering to rather than challenging greater worship of God. Perhaps this is all about “Selfmas.”

  • POTUS did attend a marine or ? base for a service in Hawaii Chriistmas Day with his family. Saw a photo of them somewhere online, we are in Ireland now.

  • I cannot vouch for your sources, HermitTalker, but the official White House POTUS’ daily schedule made no mention of the POTUS attending services anywhere:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2011-12-25

    That’s the source I used.

    However, looking further into the matter after you posted, I found Politico wrote that POTUS and his wife had a meal with Marines in the base mess hall…the video of the child grabbing at POTUS’ teeth followed that meal. Another blog says that POTUS played golf on the base, skipping out on his family for the day.

    Reuters reports what you stated:

    President Barack Obama spent a low-key Christmas Day with his wife and daughters in Hawaii, going to church and thanking U.S. troops for their service before hosting friends for dinner at the first family’s rented beach house.
    The Obamas started opening gifts around 8 a.m. on Sunday and then ate breakfast and sang carols together before heading to the chapel at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii for a Christmas service, the White House said.

    The first two reports are interesting for what they don’t say and what the Reuters report does day. The Reuters report is interesting in that it doesn’t report the round of golf, portraying POTUS as “the great family man.”

    These are all distractions from the main point, however.

  • Thanks for your reply. One hopes if he does go to church, he gets the message of what it is all about. At Christmas 44 said it was about caring for one another!!! I had a tough time in 2008 even my pastor in FL voted for him and gave money to the Party. His agenda for same-gender = marriage and extremism on abortion since he was a Senator in Illinois and the effort to undercut conscience as a right for institutions as well as individuals is scary. It might wake the sleeping giant as right now the Evangelicals are so narrow the centre needs to come to the fore. You need more laity to speak out and back the best GOP candidate. And keep the vociferous bishops muffled since they are interpreted as vote GOP while the full GOSPEL of LIFE is sidelined by the media, no blame, and too many only have the sexual agenda, important but not all of our Gospel concerns especially with jobs, medical care and who gets taxed and has to pay for bailouts.

One Horse Open Sleigh

Sunday, December 25, AD 2011

To hear most recordings of “Jingle Bells”, you wouldn’t know that the song dates back to 1850, when it was published under the title “One Horse Open Sleigh”. However, this (sadly out of print) recording by the Robert DeCormier Singers and Ensemble back in 1984 does a wonderful job of putting the history back into this classic. Seeing as it’s difficult to get hold of copies of the original album these days, I’ve ventured to put it up on YouTube.

While in general I’m a stickler for sacred Christmas Music, this is just so charming it’s hard to pass up. A merry Christmas to all our readers!

Continue reading...

3 Responses to One Horse Open Sleigh

  • Nice to hear – better than the rocket ship electronic versions around.
    Good pictures, too. And of people dressed for the weather ?!

  • A very nice rendition but why is this a Christmas song? There is no mention of Jesus, Santa Claus, giving presents or anything connected to Christmas. It would be just as appropriate in February. The same goes for Winter Wonderland.

  • From what I can gather, the song was not, when originally written, intended to have any particular connection with Christmas — it was simply a winter song. However, by this point “Jingle Bells” certainly seems to have been glommed onto the secular Christmas canon.

One Solitary Life

Sunday, December 25, AD 2011

I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.

                                                       H.G. Wells

 

 

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself…

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.

 

I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.

                                           Napoleon

 

 

 

Continue reading...

5 Responses to One Solitary Life

  • I first encountered this about thirty years ago when I lived in Australia. Our parish priest, Fr. Leo Stephens – a wonderful faithful and orthodox priest – of the parish of the Immaculate Conception at Unanderra, a suburb of Wollongong N.S.W printed out hundreds of copies of it, and distributed them after Mass one Sunday.

    I still have my copy, and have used it on occasions, particularly at R.C.I.A

    This demonstrates that Humility and Obedience are much greater instruments than Fame and material Success, as many of our saints have also shown.

  • That One, Solitary Life of God-made-Man. He lives now at the Right Hand of God the Father in Heaven, and on Earth, in all the Catholic Tabernacles and Adoration Chapels in the world until He comes again in Glory. This is Immanuel – God-With-Us

  • God bless you and protect you, Mary.

    That is the reason as we pass a Catholic Church, we should take off our hats (men), bow heads and say a little prayer in homage and thanksgiving for our God and Redeemer who dwelt among us and saved us. And, still is with us in the Holy Eucharist in the Tabernacle.

    And, if time permits, making a quick prayerful visit is ever appropriate.

    “Pray for the living and the dead.”

  • t Shaw, praying for the living and the dead is the central Mission of the Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy. Jesus gave us the Hour of Great Mercy – 3.00 O’Clock – when He died to pray the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy which He dictated to St. Faustina for the sick, the sinners, the dying and the souls in Purgatory and for the whole world. For those who are able and have the opportunity, Jesus recommends we visit Him in the Adoration Chapel at this Hour. He also requests that we especially pray this Chaplet at the bedside of the dying with the Promise that He will defend that soul at that critical Hour and, by His Merciful Grace forgive them their sins and punishement thereof – a Supra Indulgence which ensures that soul goes to Heaven.

A Proclamation

Sunday, December 25, AD 2011

 

The twenty-fifth day of December.

In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;

the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year after the flood;

the two thousand and fifteenth year from the birth of Abraham;

the one thousand five hundred and tenth year from Moses and the going forth of the people of Israel from Egypt;

the one thousand and thirty-second year from David’s being anointed king;

in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;

in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;

the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome;

the forty second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;

the whole world being at peace,

in the sixth age of the world,

Jesus Christ the eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,

desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,

being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and nine months having passed since his conception,

was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary, being made flesh.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to A Proclamation

  • Thank you for printing the Proclamtion of Jesus’ Birth. I just heard it at the beginning of Mass, but couldn’t hold it long enough to let each perspective sink in. A yearly favorite to ponder about today’s place throughout God’s history lessons and how He loves us. Thank you. Best of Christmas to you, your family and everyone.

  • Merry Christmas to all!

  • Merry Christmas PM and TShaw, and to all the contributors, commenters and readers of The American Catholic!

  • I too heard this at Mass last night, and being just a baby Catholic, I’m wondering where this comes from? Is it from the Missal?

  • It is from the Roman Martyrology Jeff:

    http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/ChristmasProclamation.htm

    The analysis I linked to above is a hoot, demonstrating just how “pc” some of our present pre-occupations tend to be. I prefer the traditional proclamation for just that reason. Jimmy Akin shows at the link below how the Traditional Proclamation was neutered and bowdlerized to suit the sentiments of politically correct moderns, lay and ecclesiasts:

    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2011/05/bad-liturgical-news-folks.html

  • Venite Adoremus. Oh Nat, you have taken this old Granny back half a Century. Merry, Merry Christmas to you all and a Blessings-filled New Year 2012

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Question: If one believes the cosmos to be 13.7 billion years old, and the earth to be at least 4 billion, then how can one *not* “bowdlerize” the proclamation?

    Lex orandi, lex credendi.

    May I ask if every one of the posters, and the author of this piece, have come to the conclusion that the Church’s apostolic Faith is true, and all of modern science wrong?

  • Religion and science Rick are different things. When the proclamation was written, and I believe it is derived from Eusebius and his Church history of the fourth century, he was using the best information available to him to assess the age of the Earth in reference to Christ. In reference to the time periods set forth in the Proclamation I prefer to use the original as it illustrates the great age of the proclamation and not something drafted the day before yesterday in a chancer, desperately trying to update it to keep pace with everchanging science. My bowdlerized comment was more aimed at the attempt to neuter the proclamation through feminist grammar.

  • It appears you are saying that the Church got it wrong on the proclamation in all of Her important assertions, but right on the question of gender.

    If the Church got it wrong on all of Her important assertions, that is;

    1. The Church got it wrong on when God created the heavens *and the Earth* (same time, according to Genesis, the Fathers, and essentially every Catholic to have lived up until the time of Darwin)

    2. The Church got it wrong concerning the Flood

    3. The Church got it wrong concerning the date of the birth of Abraham

    4. The Church got it wrong concerning the date of the Exodus

    5. The Church got it wrong concerning the anointing of David

    6. The Church got it wrong concerning the weeks of the prophecy of Daniel

    7. The Church got it wrong concerning the dates of the 194th Olympiad

    8. The Church got it wrong concerning the date of the foundation of Rome

    9. The Church got it wrong concerning the dates of the reign of Caesar Augustus

    10. The Church got it wrong concerning the whole world being at peace

    11. The Church got it wrong concerning the sixth age of the world

    Is it really that difficult to see why billions upon billions of human beings would conclude that perhaps the Church got it wrong, also, conceding the rest?

    Lex orandi, lex credendi.

    Either there Church has it right, or modern science has it right.

    The testimonies are directly contradictory.

    So I ask again:

    Are you telling us the Church has it wrong on 1-11 above, or not?

  • “It appears you are saying that the Church got it wrong on the proclamation in all of Her important assertions, but right on the question of gender.”

    No, and God alone knows how you could have gleaned that from my comment unless you are being deliberately obtuse for some axe grinding purpose, which I assume has to do with your support for geocentrism.

    http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2011/01/delusions-of-geocentric-quantization.html

    As to your various queries, the Church has no charism giving it infallibility either to scientific or historical facts, and to contend otherwise is to make oneself a laughingstock and to attempt to make the Church a laughingstock.

    Saint Augustine said it well long ago in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim:

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

  • Thank God for small mercies. At least, those who poison our youths’ minds with what to think, but do not show them how to think don’t believe the Universe is eternal as is God.

    It seems they believe the Universe created itself 13,600,000,000 years ago.

    How ingenious. Did they see the Universe’s birth certificate. Obama refuses to show his.

  • Now here we have a remarkable insight.

    Don, rather than answering my questions, decides that I must be crazy for believing *yet another one of those pesky things the Church held from Scripture, as a unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and enforced*- right up until science came along and (falsely) claimed the contrary.

    Now it is very helpful that Don links to Dr. Tom “Blogger Tom” Bridgeman, so I suppose it is only fair that the response Blogger Tom was too cowardly to post on his website be made available to the fair-minded observer:

    http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/CopernicanMyopiaFinal.pdf

    The remarkable truth is that Don first posted a proclamation, which teaches things he insists cannot be true, and then denigrates the very modernists who have altered the proclamation, so as to bring it into line with what Don himself believes!

    Behold, the pathetic, the illogical, the intellectually pretzel-twisted neo-Catholic “apologetic” in action.

    I believe I shall make Don the subject of my first post of the New Year at:

    magisterialfundies.blogspot.com

  • Rick, as I said, you simply make yourself out to be a laughingstock, and you wish to make the Church a laughingstock with you. You play into the hands of atheists and others who, as you do, attempt to confuse religion and science.

    Pope Leo XIII had your number in Providentissimus Deus:

    “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, “not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.”(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – `went by what sensibly appeared,”(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

    19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”(56)”

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

    Since we have better things to do at TAC than to argue with geocentrists, you are banned from this site.

  • The Proclamation is what someone eloquent wrote for the Birth of Jesus on December 25. There is literary beauty in it.
    I wish I had put quotes around the word history. In and of itself, it is an expression of the events told in Old Testament which led to the first Christmas, and then the New Testament. I appreciate a sense of the spans between events and Abraham, Moses, and David; just simply having a sense of the majesty and mystery of the roots of Catholicism. Why change it? Let a different one be written (hopefully from the awe in the original).
    I think a proclamation of scientific discovery markers through time would be interesting, too. A proclamation written today could be replaced next year or so, but not rewritten or edited. Each would stand in and of itself for what it is.

  • Donald, it is time for this Cradle Catholic Granny to go on her knees. We Catholics Walk by Faith and not by Sight. Time for the daily Divine Mercy Chaplet at 3.00 O’Clock Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament

Saint Athanasius On the Incarnation

Saturday, December 24, AD 2011

His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.

                                                                                        CS Lewis

Something for the weekend.  O Holy Night sung by Celtic Woman.  I can think of nothing more appropriate for Christmas Eve than this passage from On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius:

 

For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father’s Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Saint Athanasius On the Incarnation

  • Pingback: CHRISTMAS EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Thanks Don, those ladies are a class act.
    May the peace and joy and the blessings of Our Lord be with all, posters and commenters alike, on this blog.
    God Bless you all.

  • Merriest of Christmases and the Happiest of New Years Don!

  • Wow!!! Thanks, Donald. For the Message and the Ladies oh, so melodious voices. And a Very, Very Merry and Blessings-filled Christmas to you, and all our Commentators and Respondents of this Website and their Loved Ones. Donald, say a Prayer for us here in Kenya. We escaped by God’s Mercy a bombing to our Holy Family Minor Basilica – the Seat of the Head of the Catholic Church in Kenya, His Grace, John Cardinal Njue which is located in the Central of the Nairobi City. The Basilica had celebrated the first two Holy Masses at 6.15 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. During the 10.00 a.m. Holy Mass, just as we started to sing the Gloria, the Basilica had to be evacuated immediately as the Bomb Sensors indicated there was a bomb or some other explosive within the Basilica. The Contingent of Bomb Experts was called in and they came in with the sniffer dogs to locate where the gadget had been placed within the Cathedral. Consequently, we were all asked to leave the Basilica premises and its environs. We went to other Parishes for the Christmas Holy Mass. Both the main 11.30 a.m. Holy Mass – which the Cardinal was the main Celebrant – and the 6.00 p.m. Holy Mass – had to be cancelled. We are waiting for the evening News to learn what transpired. Incidentally, the 11.30 Holy Mass during Christmas and Easter is customarily attended by our President who is a practicing Catholic. We do not know whether this time, he was expected to attend that Holy Mass. Bomb attack threats during this Season have been made by the Al Shabaab Islamist Terrorists from the neighbouring Somalia where our Military Personnel are deployed in trying to quell the violence and also to protect our borders.

  • Merry Christmas Mary! What you folks are going through in Kenya puts in perspective the minor problems Catholics in the US have in comparison. My prayers are on the way!

  • “…a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man.”

    Intercourse with man is a taint?

  • Mary Christ Mass to all! To Christ through Mary.

  • Dear [email protected], my sympathy to you faithful in a place where bombs explode and blood is shed from a place where words and culture kill souls. O Holy Night helps to remind that our Lord is omniscient, has promised eternal life, inspired Psalm 23 to comfort us, and is Emmanuel.

  • Thank you, Donald and PM. Your Prayers will certainly be heard. May Baby Jesus touch the hearts of all people of goodwill so that we can continue to pray for the world and challenge the enemies of Peace, Love, Compassion and Mercy which Christ purchased for us through His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.

  • Expert on the Life of St Athanasious the Great and Spokesperson on popular culture writes:

    Jesus Christ is God the eternal Son, born of a virgin. Wow! To contemplate the truth behind oft spoken words is itself a revelation. Young Athanasios served as a deacon under the Bishopric of Alexandrian Patriarch Alexander in the era when the first ecumenical council was held early in the fourth century. He was in fact the authorized scribe who recorded the names and the number of the 27 books to be included in the cannonical record of what we call the new testament. It was during his lifetime that remarkable figures abounded like St Anthony, father of all monks and St Paul of Thebes, the desert solitary.

    During his lifetime one of the greatest heresies of Christian history was threatening to overtake the burgeoning Christian church. I speak of the Arian heresy, based on another Bishop of note, Arius of Alexandria. By challenging the teaching that Jesus of Nazareth had a preincarnate life he dimenished two vitally important doctrines. 1.) – Jesus was a created being, a demi god 2.) – Mary the virgin mother was not bearer (the one who carried and enfleshed) of deity. A key word in the debate was the term “Theotokis”, which literally means “God bearer”.

    Perhaps the best explanation of who Christ is and why Christians believe He is God in the flesh are the very words of Athanasios himself as quoted in this piece. His book, ON THE INCARNATION is an elequent defence of the doctrine of Jesus Christ upon which all Christian truth may stand or fall. It is indeed a sad reality today that so many anti trinitarian heresies have resurfaced. Popular religious groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the renegade members and splinter sects of the Seventh Day Adventist church proclaim some form of the Arian heresy so aptly defeated by St Athanasios.

    Surely the legacy of Athanasios lives on within the heart of our Christian faith. It seems to me that earnest believers must better equip themselves to counter those who deny that Jesus is both God and man or that the trinitarian doctrine is not necessary for one to be identified as a Christian. They are very wrong! We must champion the essential truths of Christianity that reveal the nature of God and the nature of man. It seems to me that both religious and social problems within the church could be more easily corrected if we get it right on who God is and what He has done through the doing and dying of the God/Man Jesus on the cross.

Mental Exercise and the Devil’s Advocate

Friday, December 23, AD 2011

Looking at that title, I really wish I could make a post worthy of it!

That said, this will have to do, I suppose.

There are enough geeks on this blog that I can hope someone else read the old defense of The Empire from Star Wars, written long before the new movies came out; it can be summed up as “great, they killed the Emperor. Hello, power vacuum– who’s going to pay the police now? Who’s going to be in charge, the Hutts?”

In keeping with the season, I offer this from NRO:
Scrooge: The First 1 Percenter.

A sample:

Either way, such actions are not really going to do much to improve the human condition. I contend that Scrooge, before he became “enlightened,” was already doing more to help his fellow man than any of the other main characters we meet in A Christmas Carol. Moreover, by giving away a substantial portion of his accumulated fortune, he drastically reduced his ability to do even more good in the world.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Mental Exercise and the Devil’s Advocate

  • For bonus conversation points, you can print out the “yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” letter and debate that.

    It beats nagging about Obama.

  • If we do good for the wrong reasons it is of no help to us. Scrooge, whatever good he accomplished to society by being a successful businessman, had walled himself off from his fellow man. His interactions with his fellows tended to consist solely in whether Scrooge could profit from it monetarily. Scrooge was miserable as a result, and his interactions tended to make other people miserable. Bob Cratchet was not entirely mistaken when he proclaimed the unreformed Scrooge as “the founder of the feast” on Christmas Day, since the business acumen of Scrooge provided his livelihood and Cratchet understood it, but the reaction of his family to the propsed toast underscores how the spirit in which we do something often will determine how others react to it. The unreformed Scrooge reminds me of this passage from Saint Paul:

    “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

    The unreformed Scrooge understands this. When he and the ghost of Christmas Past visit a Christmas party tossed by Fezziwig, an old employer of Scrooge, and the ghost notes how Fezziwig’s employees love him and yet the party isn’t costing Fezziwig that much money. Scrooge responds: “He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil…The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.” It is the lack of love that makes Scrooge a miser, and having love that made Fezziwig a beloved boss.

  • The worst poverty is not pecuniary. It is our national destitution of human virtues: fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance.

    Voting to tax someone else and indirectly giving the money to the perpetually (“. . . will always be with you”) poor through unionized bureaucrats is not one of the Corporal Works of Mercy. Then, they use the votes of desperate dependents (their destructive policies create) to obtain political power (mass brigandage) and then advance mass evils: abortion/murder; class hatred/envy/wrath; fornication/lust; gay privileges/lust; graft/greed; tyranny/envy/greed/wrath; . . .

    Scrooge is a fictional character. Lying, liberals (I repeat myself, again) are today’s real-life evil do-gooders.

The Veepstakes: Who Cares?

Thursday, December 22, AD 2011

The other day Pat Archbold wrote a post lamenting that Condoleeza Rice may be positioning herself for a run at the Vice Presidential nomination.  Though I agree with Patrick that she would be an unacceptable choice, it’s probably nothing to worry about.  Frankly it just seemed as though the Washington Times was attempting to make a story out of nothing.

It did prompt me to think about the attention that gets paid to Vice Presidential selections.  What I concluded was that this decision is generally inconsequential, and it’s foolish to determine one’s vote based on this selection.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Veepstakes: Who Cares?

  • That’s probably fair analysis about how similar ideology leads to greater influence But I have little confidence in reports about who really carries weight in an administration. You don’t hear many insiders claiming responsibility for failures or saying that they had nothing to do with successes.

    Additionally, what do we mean by impact? LBJ probably didn’t talk Kennedy into anything, but handled the dealings with Congress. It’s been pretty common in recent history for a governor-turned-President to have an insider VP. Anyway, those are my first few thoughts. I’ll be interested to see where this discussion goes.

  • Pinky, I was mainly thinking about having an actual impact on administration decision-making, but I hadn’t really considered other things like Congressional influence. That’s a good qualifier.

  • I think Gerald Ford had Nelson Rockefeller supervise the Domestic Policy staff at the White House and put him in charge of one very consequential commission of inquiry. Ford suggested at a later date that optimal use of the vice president would be as a chief of staff.

    Why not eliminate the position, or replace it with a set of appointive vice presidents?

  • What Ford said makes sense, although maybe the skills you’d look for in a Chief of Staff are different than those of a potential President. But does any candidate think about their VP as anything more than an election-season tactic? Maybe Clinton and W did, which is what makes their cases unique. And Paul, the main function of a veep seems to be to go to formal international events and not cause problems – which makes our current vice-president an interesting choice, to put it mildly.

  • I think the duties of the VP are daily to inquire as to the health of the Pres, and to attend state funerals. Otherwise, he’s the president of the Senate and casts a vote if there is a deadlock.

    Don’t trust my memory. It’s a long time since I was in high school. However, in those days they taught facts not ideology.

    They chose Blithering Joe Biden either because he could deliver the Electoral College votes of Delaware; or because they were fairly assured that he would make the zero look like a super star.