Transcript of First Day of ObamaCare Oral Argument

Monday, March 26, AD 2012



I would caution everyone from reading too much into the questions asked by the Justices on the first of three days of oral argument, but it was an interesting day of oral argument.  Go here to read the transcript.  Go here to listen to an audio recording of the oral argument.  My thoughts on the first day I will post this evening.

Continue reading...

Obama Speaks the Truth!

Monday, March 26, AD 2012

30 Responses to Obama Speaks the Truth!

  • What does Obama have to do before he can be impeached?

  • “After my election I have more flexibility.”

    It’s deeply frightening to speculate what Obama would get up to if/when he no
    longer had to consider what the electorate thought of his policies.

    What changes could this president have in mind for our missile defense system that he
    can only enact when he’s in a second term, and needn’t worry about public opinion?

  • Political “gaffes” are moments in which truths are told. We documented a few of them in our new book, Tell The Truth, and suggest that all types of institutions would do well to emulate such behaviors (vs looking at them as unintended exceptions).

    Here’s the link to our new book:

  • Really, none of this surprises me. Many of us here understood the character (or lack thereof ) of Obama. What I wasn’t prepared for was the sickening reassuring pat of a fellow traveler . Really scary stiff all the way around with this guy. I fear for my children.

  • It feels like just yesterday when Obama jettisoned plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic under a missile defense shield giving Russia what it had lost just 20 years earlier—militaristic threat over Eastern Europe. In return Russia has become more assertive in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Now, a stalwart defense capability is being given away, not apparently even negotiated away, and for what….

    Further, does anyone not see the astonishing irony of Obama making this comment in South Korea, a country under constant threat of missile attack from the North, and at a time when the North is pushing its missile range to include the continental US.

  • Mary De Voe, you crack me up with such simplicity!


    I wonder if a case can be made that he is currently so guilty.

  • Even though I roundly despise our President’s policies etc, I don’t see this as being so incredibly “out there”. As though every President hasn’t made the same or similar comments when negotiating with a foreign power in an election year.. It isn’t pretty, but somehow I don’t think this is the first time something like this has been said by a President.

  • I think it is very “out there” Chris, and I hope that we have not had a President before that assured an adversary power that they would get what they wanted once he no longer had to answer to the American people again. I view this as very important, and alarming, and not a minor gaffe.

  • This is like something out of a Frederick Forsyth novel. Imagine the president of the U.S. in effect abdicating to a once long-time enemy by pledging to scale back military power. This is almost as bad as his bow to the Saudi king. God save the Republic from this madman!

  • Donald, yes.. definitely important, alarming and not a minor gaffe. Maybe I’m just more cynical about our ex-Presidents. It seems Obama was expressing that he would have more room to maneuver, diplomatically, once the election year pressure was off. To me, this seems like politics as usual. Is it possible Obama was merely placating Medvedev? Is he just playing for time? We can guess, but it’d be difficult to know for certain.

    We do know the Russians would MUCH rather have the incumbent in office next year than the GOP frontrunner.. So saith Pravda. Which seems to lend credence to the idea that Obama is more or less selling out to them.

    There are days when I hate politics.. and days when I despise it. Today is the latter 😉

  • Paul Primavera:
    “I wonder if a case can be made that he is currently so guilty.”
    Section 3 – Treason Note
    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
    When Obama neglected to recite the Declaration of Independence and include “our Creator”, no less than three times, (on video) Obama committed treason and sedition against our founding principles. As a president who swore an oath to protect and defend our constitution, Obama has purposefully violated his oath in surrendering our sovereignty as a nation to the United Nations in the LOST (LAWS OF THE SEA TREATY) and the Small Weapons Treaty, signed by Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Rural Councils, The National Defense Authorization Act, Obamacare itself, in Executive Orders, usurping the powers of the Legislative branch of government to make laws according to the informed consent and the will of the people and to ratify treaties. Abortion is treason against our nation. The people are our posterity, our constitutional posterity. The children who survived abortion and became citizens at birth, Obama left to die of neglect in a broom closet. These citizens were Obama’s constituency and Obama wanted them dead and gone. More treason against our nation and our constitution. Abortion is murder, for Obama, abortion is treason. As Stalin said: “To kill one man is homicide, to kill 30,000,000 is a statistic” It is also treason. Stalin did it, Obama does it.
    Harrison Williams was “influence peddling” to Arabs in Abscam and he left Congress before being indicted. He spent two years in Federal prison. “Williams was convicted on May 1, 1981 for taking bribes in the Abscam sting operation,[1] and resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1982 before a planned expulsion vote”. From Wikipedia.
    Treason inheres: “or in adhering to their (U.S.)Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

  • I love you, Mary De Voe! Platonicly, of course.

  • Chris M. Pravda, the Russian newspaper said that even they were stunned by how much Obama took the first one hundred days in office. Obama was not placating. Obama was assuring.

  • For you Paul Primavera. Say one whole Rosary for me if you really love me. Rosary Victory

  • Paul Primavera: I will settle for one Hail Mary

  • Mary, I have to travel to another city tomorrow to attend a Religious Freedom Mass. The travel time is 4 hours. So I shall pray all 20 decades. There will be more than enough time! And I need the practice. Now Latin or English? What’s your preference? 😉

  • That this hateful nothing could be elected president tells more about the imbeciles that befoul this once-great nation than it does about Obama.

  • Was Health and Human ‘Services’ (HHS) derived from Health, Education, and Welfare? The Department of Education (DOE) becoming an offshoot department to work with its companion, the NEA union? Lost track of these cabinet secretaries, as well as the names of their departments of responsibility, over the last generation. Seems there isn’t even a fox guarding the hen house, and the eggs are disappearing or hatching as other-than-free-range chickens. At least, President Medvedev understands the President’s need for space and flexibility …

  • Paul Primavera: NOw, I have to learn Latin.

  • PM: Obama can have all the space and flexibility he wants in the broom closet.

  • Mary, the broom closet not in the WH. Probably the UN.

  • Nah, you’re both wrong. The outhouse in the upper reaches of North Korea!


  • Impeachment proceedings started now, will dampen Obama’s chance for reelection. I am told by older voters, that they voted the way their parents and grandparents voted-Democratic.(before secularization, atheism, abortion, euthanasia, New World Order under the mortagage company, depradation of the checks and balances in our Constitution, betraying America’s sovereignty, among other crimes committed by Barak Obama)Impeachment proceedings will cause these voters to take a closer look at who they are voting for. Obama stands for atheism, totalitarianism, legalized homicide, repudiation of our founding principles, usurpation of personal property ownership, rejection of personal sovereignty, refutation of First Amendment Freedoms, eminent domain, habeas corpus.
    Obama’s hero, Benito Mussolini and his wife were dragged through the streets by their feet and hung upside down in the public square so that eveyone who had been abused by Mussolini could have at him. Obama deserves no less, but we have to settle for impeachment, and let God deal with his abysmal soul. May the wrath of God be upon him. Rosary Victory

  • “May the wrath of God be upon him. ”

    Sometimes the wrath of God is a kindness. It was for King Manasseh of Judah. That’s what it took for him to repent.

  • Thank you, Paul. One Hail Mary

  • Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.

  • Mary,

    Stop, please. Aside from the ridiculous assertion that Obama has committed an treason, and the proposterous assertion that Republican presidential hopefuls would benefit right now from impeachment proceedings, I want to point out that Republicans voted overwhelmingly for The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (and previous years, too). In good faith, you would have to put them all on trial, too.

  • Spambot3049: These are my opinions. You do not have to like them, but they are my opinions. 1) in violating his oath of office, President Obama has refused to adhere to our founding principles, aborting our constitutional posterity, all future generations, is treason and deserves impeachment. 2) I never assumed that the Republican hopefuls would benefit from impeachment hearings. I would like for all citizens to be enlightened as to what is being foistered upon them for their tax dollars, a boot on the neck. 3) Obama removed the words from the NDAA that would have protected citizens, before he signed it. Again the bait and switch game. Aren’t you tired of being lied to. I am. And before citizens vote, they need to know just what they are voting for. It is called TRUTH, the rest is called FREEDOM. AND I SEE YOU HAVE A RIDICULOUS PROBLEM WITH TRUTH AND FREEDOM.

  • Paul Primavera: I made several copies of Ave Maria until I may commit the Hail Mary in Latin to memory. It is so beautiful. God bless.

“You had better be careful about what you ask for in prayer”…

Monday, March 26, AD 2012


The International Tribunal Into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) is announcing the worldwide “Occupy The Vatican” movement.  It’s set to begin on Palm Sunday which, in 2012, ironically is April Fool’s Day.

According to the ITCCS announcement, Occupy The Vatican will take “direct action against the world’s oldest and most ruthless criminal.”


“Gee, what’s that human exorcism chain?”


“Not in Our Name” (NON), a group of Catholic and Protestant clergy who “support the legal disestablishment of criminal church corporations like the Vatican and the Church of England,” will be linking up with Occupy the Vatican.  NON seeks a “return to an egalitarian, congregational system of Christianity devoid of the genocidal legacy of Christendom.”

Also joining in the movement will be traditional indigenous elders in Canada from the Mohawk, Squamish, and Ojibway nations who survived Catholic and Protestant “Indian residential schools.”  Their particular contribution to the movement will be to issue new banishment orders evicting these churches from their lands.

On April 8—Easter Sunday—Occupy the Vatican supporters will gather in Rome to create a “human exorcism chain” around the Vatican.  They’ll be praying that God “expel the spirit of lies and violence” from the Church.

Caoimhin Ui Niall of Occupy the Vatican said:

The important thing is to take action to dismantle the church from the ground up, and place it under public control.  That’s the only way future generations of our children will be safe from a church that’s a law unto itself and feeds and profits off the suffering of the innocent.

Let everyone do something on April 1 and April 8 to end the reign of terror of this false church.


The Motley Monk’s Mom used to warn him about prayer.  “Be careful about what you ask for.  You may just get what you’re asking for,” she’d say.

That warning seems apropos for the Occupy the Vatican’s human exorcism chain.  They had better be careful about what they’re asking for.  They might just find that God expels their spirit of lies and violence from the Church.



To read the ITCCS announcement, click on the following link:

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:

Continue reading...

15 Responses to “You had better be careful about what you ask for in prayer”…

  • This post is worthy of Larry D’s Acts of the Apostasy! Love it!

  • Interesting. We might be treated to a display of the function of the Swiss Guard.

  • Leticia,
    The Swiss guard carry Sig Sauer pistols (ritsy) and Heckler and Koch armor piercing submachine guns (talk about the death penalty!)…but such guns are hopelessly ineffective against a ring of exorcism which I had thought about hiring to fix my furnace but they cost alot depending on how many people are in the ring. Public Service guy… and replaced one belt and the furnace is fine just in time…27 degrees tonight in the N.E. US.

  • “Occupy The Vatican”


  • Who said there is no antiChrist at work , presently clandestinely, endeavoring to destroy the Catholic Church and Christianity. A sanitized Christianity is no Christianity at all except in name only.

  • Aren’t there hazards associated with unauthorized exorcisms? This wouldn’t be a case of Beelzebub casting out demons would it?

  • And Caiafas tore his garments when he heard Jesus proclaim that He is the son of God.
    But when Jesus died, the veil was torn into two in the temple. So who is greater, Christ or Caiafas, the Church or NON?

  • “The important thing is to take action to dismantle the church from the ground up, and place it under public control.”

    Hmm so disassemble it right off of the rock Peter on which Jesus has built it, and onto the shifting sand of public opinion. What about when the rain falls, the floods come, and the winds blow and buffet? Their house will collapse and be completely ruined. Protestantism doesn’t work. But the Church is wisely built by Jesus Himself on the rock Peter, and according to Him the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

  • verily there are not enough bullets.

  • When do they “Occupy Mecca”? Oh wait… THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED IN. What time is this set for, and what time is that EST? And how many people are normally in St. Peter’s Square on Palm Sunday? Quite a few, I imagine.

  • “On April 8—Easter Sunday—Occupy the Vatican supporters will gather in Rome to create a “human exorcism chain” around the Vatican. They’ll be praying that God “expel the spirit of lies and violence” from the Church.” Does the Occupy the Vatican know that such slander is perjury in a court of law? Or is slander against the Catholic Church, mob rule and lawlessness now the culture. A lynch mob. Do they have two witnesses to establish a judicial fact that the Church WHOM Jesus Christ instituted is WHO Occupy the Vatican says SHE is. I would need to see the charges, hear the evidence and decide for myself. These people are violating simple courtesy and the Rule of Law. If they are given hearing let it be in a court, the United Nations International Criminal Court. Let Occupy the vatican, put up of shut up. When the United Nations International Criminal Court finds that Occupy the Vatican has freedom to speak the TRUTH about Jesus Christ, let them speak.

  • Well, What is The International Tribunal Into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) and for that matter The United Nations International Criminal Court going to do about the Communion of Saints? Are the courts going to shoo the saints out of heaven? Occupy the Heavens, a movement to remove God from His Throne lost to Saint Michael: WHO is like unto God?.

  • One facet of the Communion of Saints that the atheists who call themselves Occupy the Vatican cannot comprehend is that an unrepentant sinner is un-remembered in heaven by the Communion of Saints. A sinner of any stripe has no claim to the mercy and truth of Jesus Christ, to his own existence and being, as a human being (man) by his own choice in disavowing the mercy and truth of Jesus Christ. An avowed dissenter from the truth of Jesus Christ, upon returning to the eternal, has no place, as all place is prepared for those who love God, in the mind of God, our Father and our constitutional Creator. The unrepentant sinner, the public dissenter from the Truth of Jesus Christ has no part in Jesus Christ. The saints in heaven do not know the public dissenter from the truth of Jesus Christ, because the saints center themselves on Jesus, WHOM the dissenters dissent. The short form is: The damned in hell are not remembered by the saints in heaven. Occupy the Vatican use the damned in hell to promote their dissent.

  • That’s why it’s good to say if it is God’s will (not yours).

Fan Mail

Monday, March 26, AD 2012


We recently got this missive over the transom at The American Catholic which made my day:

It’s really unfortunate to read a Catholic publication so full of hateful speech and uncharitable thought and partisan bigotry. Jimmy Carter is many things but he is not, nor has he ever been, a bigot. To denounce Carter and Obama in these crude ad hominem assaults  doers nothing to advance rational discourse, does nothing to propagate the faith, does nothing but drive deeper wedges into a society already torn by  ideological  zealots.  The editors of the American Catholic are far more Catholic than they are Christlike and far more Republican than they are American.  Your screeds are  reminiscent of the rants from the South in the tragically blind days before the Civil War.  Step back and think of the damage you are doing to the grace and coherence of  what once was known as Christian doctrine. 

I am sincere in my contention that it made my day.  Praise rarely elicits anything other than a brief moment of pleasure.  Criticism, even off the wall bitter criticism, provides an opportunity for thought and for fisking!

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Fan Mail

  • Two demurrals:

    1. Terms like ‘bigot’ and the like are often used improperly. Two questions to ask: is your antagonist immune to contrary arguments and evidence (and in Carter’s case, my guess would be ‘not abnormally so’); and is there so much malicious chaff in an antagonists statement that one cannot have a productive discussion (of which I have a recent example in someone I encountered in a forum like this whose opening salvo was the contention that the Catholic Church had ‘covered up’ ‘pedophilis’ ‘for millenniums [sic]’.

    2. We are riven by programmatic disagreements, but I think you underestimate certain novel aspects of our situation. Robert Bork has said that in his experience there was a sea change in the quality of political discourse around about 1981. I think there was another around about 2001. Consider the public treatment of George W. Bush. I will wager you that a content analysis of his public papers would reveal him to be among the least rhetorically confrontational men in presidential politics in the last 40-odd years. His actually social views might be properly described as ‘Rockefeller Republican ca. 1962’. He belonged to the United Methodist Church. And yet he was occasionally spoken of as if he were a vitriolic Spanish falangist. It was all very strange. The whole Sarah Palin discourse has been downright bizarre. (I am aware that you do have something of a complimentary phenomenon in the use of phrases like ‘the Obama Marxist regime’).

  • We will have to agree to disagree Art on whether Carter is an anti-Catholic bigot. I think the evidence is clear that he is.

    In regard to Bork and a change in the political discourse circa 1981, that simply is not true.
    Consider this gem from Martin Luther King, Jr’s speech at his acceptance of the Nobel peace prize in Oslo:

    “Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.”

    American politics have usually been tough and fairly vituperative at all times. The election of 1800 was probably the worst. Harry Truman, now regarded by most Americans, including myself, as a great president, routinely referred to Republicans as fascists. The difference now is that due to the internet more people read about it, and participate in it. That is a quantitative change, but not a qualitative one. I do agree in regard to Sarah Palin that the gutter quality of the personal ad hominem attacks against her, and the savaging of her family members, is something fairly new, although by no means completely unprecedented, and completely despicable, in American politics.

  • Hmmmm….”so full of hateful speech” as in “hate speech”. I think I see where your latest critic is heading— No speech for thee but only for me.

  • I didn’t even know you were a Republican Donald!

    I’m an independent, but I lean Catholic first, Conservative second.

    Go Santorum!

  • routinely referred to Republicans as fascists.

    Routinely referred to Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey as fascists? Can you locate an example? I can imagine him referring to Joseph McCarthy or one of his enablers that way; McCarthy’s stock and trade was cynical rabble rousing, smears, and fantasies.

    I think Robert Bork was referring to the disposition and behavior of ‘official Washington’, especially Congress. As a public official of consequence before and after 1981, he does have an informed opinion on the matter. I do not think the King quote demonstrates what you think it does, for the following reasons:

    a. Goldwater was not responsible for the opinions of people who voted for him, but his campaign did corral much of the uglier aspect of political society in this country. His motives were not their motives. King’s statement needs editing. It is not wholly false.

    b. I would refer you to Jody Powell’s reminiscences of his time as press secretary. He was repeatedly purturbed and baffled by the habit of members of the Congressional Black Caucus of meeting with the President at the White House and then issuing a denunciation on the steps of same. Characterisics of rhetoric and an understanding of manners can be subculturally particular. One needs to remember also that King was a wholly extraparliamentary figure. One might also compare King’s public statements with Al Sharpton’s.

    That aside, I was reading newspapers fairly regularly between 1981 and 2001, and, no, I do not think it was like that. A great deal of vitriol was lobbed at Ronald Reagan (Bork was referring to that), but Reagan was a far more challenging figure than George W. Bush. Michael Kinsley wrote a great many snotty columns attacking papa George Bush, but the adolescent class cut-up’s babble was about as bad as it got. (Dan Quayle got a raw deal, though). As for Mr. Clinton, the worst of it was by a crew of imaginative conspiracy-spinners (Vincent Foster was murdered, etc.) who wrote books distributed by obscure (vanity?) presses.

  • Here is a typical example Art of Truman on the stump:

    “The American way of life which most of us have been taking for granted is threatened today by powerful forces of which most people are not even aware.

    Everybody knows about the contemptible Communist minority. We all detest that Communist minority. Everybody knows, too, about the crackpot forces of the extreme right wing. We have a vociferous representative of that force here in Chicago. We are on our guard against them, however.

    The real danger to our democracy does not come only from these extremes. It comes mainly from the powerful reactionary forces which are silently undermining our democratic institutions.

    I am going to tell you just what these forces are.

    We must not imagine, just because we love freedom, that freedom is safe–that our freedom is safe. Eternal vigilance is still the price of liberty.

    Other people have also loved freedom, but have lost their liberty with tragic suddenness.

    It happened in Italy 25 years ago. It happened in Germany 15 years ago. It happened in Czechoslovakia just a few months ago. And it could happen here.

    I know that it is hard for Americans to admit this danger. American democracy has very deep roots. But, if the antidemocratic forces in this country continue to work unchecked, this Nation could awaken a few years from now to find that the Bill of Rights had become a scrap of paper.

    My friends, that must never happen! Look back over history, and you will find that wherever ruthless men have destroyed liberty and human rights, certain economic and social forces had paved the way for them.

    What are these forces that threaten our way of life? Who are the men behind them? They are the men who want to see inflation continue unchecked. They are the men who are striving to concentrate great economic power in their own hands. They are the men who are setting up and stirring up racial and religious prejudice against some of our fellow Americans.

    I propose to state in simple, unmistakable language, just exactly how each of these three groups of men–working through the Republican Party, if you please–is a serious threat to the future welfare of this great Nation.”

    Go to the link below for the whole speech:

    Just before the election in 1948 he told an audience of 24,000 in Chicago that a vote for Dewey was a vote for fascism.

  • “but his campaign did corral much of the uglier aspect of political society in this country.”

    As ugly as this Art?

  • “One needs to remember also that King was a wholly extraparliamentary figure. One might also compare King’s public statements with Al Sharpton’s.”

    In this particular case Art, I do not see a lot to choose from. Anyone who thought that Barry Goldwater represented a fascist threat to the country was either engaging in the worst type of partisan diatribe, or not playing with a full deck.

  • I would not defend Lyndon Johnson’s ad campaigns.

    I think Ross Barnett represented something surpassingly ugly about American political life. I would not compare it to Johnson’s ad campaigns; it was on an entirely different register. Barnett’s constituency was ensconced within Goldwater’s larger constituency, not because Goldwater had any interest in maintaining Southern caste regulations, but because Goldwater’s understanding of federal-state relations was more congruent with executing Barnett’s program than was Johnson’s view. What the implications of that would have been had Goldwater been elected in 1964, I cannot imagine.

Prayer for the Pope in Cuba

Monday, March 26, AD 2012


“There is not one single social or economic principle or concept in the philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik, which has not been realised, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the White Ant.”

                                                              Winston Churchill

Let us pray today for Pope Benedict while he is in Cuba that, like Moses, he may help lead a people in bitter bondage out of slavery.  Pope Benedict XV named Our Lady of Charity patroness of Cuba in 1916, and therefore we will beseech her aid:

Our Lady of Charity, we humbly ask you to intercede with Our Lord, Your Son, for your suffering people in Cuba.  Inspire the hearts of your people to turn to God and pray for their deliverance from sin and from the tyranny that has deprived them of their freedom for more than five decades.  Strengthen Pope Benedict as he brings the truth of Christ to your people of Cuba longing for that truth and for spiritual and temporal freedom.  Let this year O Lady, if it be the will of God, be a year of Jubilee and Freedom for all Cubans.  We ask this in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.



Continue reading...

One Response to Prayer for the Pope in Cuba

Dawkins Meet Clovis

Sunday, March 25, AD 2012


At the atheist rally in Washington on Saturday, which drew a pathetic 20,000 worshipers of the Great Vacuum, Professor Richard Dawkins delivered himself of this tolerant and loving sentiment:

Dawkins didn’t appear until five hours into the event, but few seemed discouraged by the near-constant rain or drizzle. They whistled and cheered for his familiar lines such as:

I don’t despise religious people. I despise what they stand for …

Evolution is not just true, it’s beautiful …

Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to “ridicule and show contempt” for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.

Dawkins obviously needs our prayers for the state of his soul and our horse laughs for him being such a bigoted dweeb.  However, part of me wishes that he could encounter a Catholic convert like Clovis.  Clovis was a chieftain of the Franks in the late fifth and early sixth centuries.  He laid the framework for Frankish domination of Gaul and is the Father of France.  A pagan, he was converted to the Faith primarily through the prayers and loving example of his Catholic wife Clotilde.  In the battle of Tolbiac where the Alemanni were defeating his Franks, he cried out to the God of Clotilde that he would convert if victory was granted to him.  He won and began instruction in the Faith under Saint Remigius Bishop of Reims.  The Saint told Clovis when he was baptized on Christmas Day 496:  Bow thy head, O Sicambrian, adore what thou hast burned and burn what thou hast adored!

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Dawkins Meet Clovis

  • O, if only I my brave Franks and I had been there we would have avenged the insults to our God!

    I LIKE his passion!

    Maybe not so very socially productive these days, but hey, his heart is in the right place. ;^)

  • Well, I agree with him that evolution is true and beautiful — like all of Creation. Dawkins and his kind think that science can bury religion. Not so. IMHO the more science discovers the more it bolsters the “argument from beauty”.

    Imagine if Dawkins, with his passion and intellect, ever were to have a road to Damascus moment. One can always hope.

  • 20,000 misguided souls, standing in the rain to hear a call to arms is no small matter.

    Atheism has taken on a new militancy. As a Philadelphian, I can’t help but draw a parallel to Know Nothings of the 1850s. Therein lies a warning and a blueprint for sending them packing: pray but act. We built schools to protect our children and protected our church with cudgels.

    Catholic men have a critical role in protecting the Church. Almighty God gave us these arms to stand against the forces of Satan. We pray and we protect.

    To all Brother Knights, surely it is time to stand up, to do more than attend an occasional fish fry? Surely now is the time to ask men to join us, to write those letters to representatives, to attend those rallies, to confront the protestors in front of our churches, to defend our priests and bishops? If not now, when? If not us, who?

    To Catholic men who have not yet joined the Knights of Columbus, I emplore you to do so for only in numbers, standing as one can we confront the evils lined up for battle.


  • “20,000 misguided souls, standing in the rain to hear a call to arms is no small matter.”

    It certainly is for a rally in Washington G-Veg, especially one that got the amount of free media that this one got from the Mainstream Media. As for the K of Cs, as a knight for over two decades, I completely agree with you.

  • The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights. To deny God, is to deny one’s own existence and unalienable rights. Dawkins cannot explain his existence without recourse to God and to God’s creation through evolution. G.K. Chesterton said: “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” In denying our founding principles of unalienable, endowed civil rights, Dawkins would deny all men their freedom and for this reason ought not be given a public forum. The atheist commits perjury in a court of law. Dawkins is Britain’s revenge on America for winning the American Revolution. Trying to erase our unalienable rights eradicates Dawkins’ unalienable right to free speech and freedom.

  • This year, Columbus Day falls on October 8th. It would be an extraordinary thing for the Knights of Columbus to hold a mass rally in D.C. to uphold Freedom of Religion and to highlight the Catholic contributions to our nation and Western cultured.

    Last year, I raised the idea of a Columbus Day celebration to the K of C Pennsylvania State Officers. They were less than interested. Frankly, they were downright rude. I was told that we “can’t” do such an event because Brother Knights don’t show up for events. I got the sense that there was more than a little of irritation at the gall of a mere Brother suggesting a state-wide event. I point this out solely because there is more than a little bit of the duffer in our K of C leadership and we can’t count on them to have the imagination or intestinal fortitude to make anything significant happen.

    I believe that my Brother Knights are capable of great things and that we sell ourselves short with such a “can’t do” attitude. So I ask you, can we make October 8, 2012 a date worth remembering?

    David Spaulding
    [email protected]

  • “The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights.”

    Would that it were always so. Unfortuantely, there are some “acquaintences” (I would not deign to infer friendship) of mine are not so infused with this innate wisdom.

    They are convinced that we, as living beings, are simple accidents of astro-chemistry. From the primordial ooze, self-replicating bits of protein, sugar and water survived extinctions and permutations to the point where a certain hardiness was imbued that defied most of the dangers of being more than inert.

    Epochs of “natural” forces then allowed a narrow branch of these self-sustaining, locomotive carbo-hydroids the abilities to act in ways that do not comport solely to the effects of their environments upon them, but rather independently and under the impeti of their own cognitions. In the view of this glorious accident, nothing exists conceptually but what is invented by the chemical processes of the perceptive and reactive aspects of that which is called “living.” There is no ulitmate objective, no overarching existential thread or metanormal propellant.

    Thus, as all things are indeed created equal – as in equally irrelevant and purposeless – to the strongest go the spoils. They are Fascists, and they do not pretend to be otherwise. The name causes some irrtation, but it is only a temporary hurdle. That epithet will be remade sometime soon.

    I can’t think of how to change any of that except to live my life as an example. There is a hardness of heart (and skull) that doesn’t allow those who have become convinced of all this to accept any other course of thought.

  • WK Aiken: “…nothing exists conceptually but what is invented by the chemical processes of the perceptive and reactive aspects of that which is called “living.” What is “living”? Can the atheist create or restore life?” “Thus, as all things are indeed created equal – as in equally irrelevant and purposeless – to the strongest go the spoils.” All MEN are created equal.” Only material can evolve. The immortal human soul, the metaphysical, the intangible does not evolve, but is of necessity created. Free will does not evolve. From what primordial soup does intellect evolve? (If I stick my head in the sand will I grow a higher IQ? How does reason and from what does reason evolve? Sovereignty, personhood, intuition evolves from what kind of matter? Abstract thought is invented through the brain but not by the brain. And finally, immortality . The cowardly atheist refuses to accept immortality because that means that there is a God to WHOM he will have to answer. When the atheist preaches his doom and hopelessness he must be asked to prove that there is no immortality, no God, no judgment and further, to prove that there is no reason. Do not let the atheist tell you that all men are created equal into his egomaniacal rubbish. Oh, and do not stand next to an atheist during a lightning storm. One never can tell when God will call the atheist home.

  • @ Mary De Voe – you saked, “Can the atheist create or restore life?” I believe that man will one day formulate living matter out of inanimate matter in the laboratory. I feel as though that is inevitable. For man to make his defiance of God Almighty complete, he must partake of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Life just as he partook of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps I am wrong. But while God has limited man’s intelligence, He has placed no limit on man’s stupidity or man’s arrogance.

  • At His first coming and Life on earth Jesus was very humble and meek. Like a lamb He meekly went to His death on the cross. Definitely not the behavior of a King with power and authority able to crush his enemies with one command. Jesus Christ IS not going to turn the other cheek at His Second Coming. Everyday souls are judged individually of which those who continue to be unrepentant and reject Him feel the” backside of His Hand”. Natural and man-made disasters and inferior and misdirected leadership and decisions are God’s means to remind mankind of the seriousness and even severity of His Judgements.

  • Atheists are bores; they are always talking about God.

  • Bear with me: The definition of religion. And you will not get this in our politically corrected dictionaries, the definition of religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheism, and this is a nuance the Supreme Court missed is that atheism is NOT, I repeat, NOT a religion in response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheism is a BELIEF by man in there being no Supreme Sovereign Being, no Prime Mover, no First Principle, no Divine Providence, no Person Whom man calls God. Our Creator’s gift of man’s immutable, rational, immortal soul, unalienable rights, immutable sovereign personhood, free will are all relative to what the man chooses to believe. To the atheist freedom is not a foundational principle.
    America is founded on principles that require a belief, at least in the other person’s unalienable rights, in the other person’s rational, immortal soul and immutable personhood. In the atheistic USSR, a Christian cannot be a citizen. A Christian is an alien by his own choice to pursue his belief in God. In America, an atheist cannot be a citizen. An atheist chooses to repudiate his belief in God and man’s unalienable rights, our founding principles. In America, an atheist is an alien by his own free will choice to believe other than in man’s God -given freedom.
    Inscribed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are a fundamental religion, that God exists and our dependence upon God is primary. The atheist is militant because he knows that he must tyrannize to subdue the belief in God to overcome his alienation. This is only possible if the atheist can change our founding principles and this would be through a constitutional change ratified by two-thirds of the states. A constitutional change ratified by two-thirds of the states would change America into an atheistic nation. The politically correct nonsense that is going on now is rubbish.
    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Abortion too, must be ratified by two-thirds of the states to deprive a newly begotten individual substance of a rational nature of his founding principles. Abortion deprives a newly begotten sovereign person of JUSTICE.

  • “Atheists are bores; they are always talking about God.”


  • Paul: Life and BEING, human existence, (the definiton of man is a being composed of body and immortal, rational soul) created by man cannot be of a human nature because this is Frankenstein without an immortal soul. Man cannot create an immortal soul not matter how long he works in his laboratory. Remember Farnkenstein.

  • Paul, I needed to laugh and got to with my spelling of Frankenstein. I have a story to tell you about laughter, but it must wait.

  • Paul: MY fault. The question ought to have read: ““Can the atheist create or restore human life?” God breathed his own life into man. If man breathes his own life into man, that is good, but it is not God’s life. God’s life. The hunger for God’s life in man’s soul is proof positive that man is a being of human life and God’s life.

  • Hello again Paul: “Perhaps I am wrong. But while God has limited man’s intelligence, He has placed no limit on man’s stupidity or man’s arrogance.” Concupiscence has limited man’s intelligence. Original sin darkened the mind of man. Original innocence, virginity, beholding the face of God is intelligence unlimited. and by the way, it is the duty of the state to provide for and protect original innocence and virginity and man’s right to behold the face of God.

  • WK Aiken: My statement:”The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights.” If the atheist did not accept his existence at some level from the Hand of God, the atheist would annihilate himself. And since the atheist is in Washington D.C. the atheist is a liar.

  • “Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to “ridicule and show contempt” for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.” Dawkins is a consummate LIAR ( see my earlier post) and perjurer in a court of law and swindler of the very people he tries to lead by denying their very human essence, the human soul.

  • Brother Knight here…

    I kind of feel sorry for them. Not a joyful bunch of people at all….

  • @ Mary De Voe: Thank you – I agree.

    My only point is this: if man creates life – even “intelligent” life – in the lab, whether silicon based or carbon based, it will indeed be possessed of a soul – the soul of the demonic.

    My father (a devout Pentecostal) had thought that perhaps the beast from the sea in the first part of Revelation 13 (i.e., the antichrist) would be man’s own creation possessed by Satan himself (the beast from the land in the second part of Revelation 13 being the false prophet – but there are other equally valid interpretations to this chapter way beyond this blog post).

    I am no theologian, nor do I claim that these are the proverbial “Last Days” (though in a certain way, I hope so). But anything man makes in the lab mimicking life (even intelligent life) will not be infused with the soul or spirit by God (as you correctly pointed out), but infused it will be by Satan himself. Make sense, or am I all washed up?

  • @Paul W. Primavera. I hope you are not washed up, I was so enjoying our exchange. Before I comment, there are some definitions I want to share to uncomplicate this. The devil is a pure spirit, a species of Angel and has no soul because the devil has no body. Man has an immortal, rational soul infused by God when two become one, when the man comes into existence. Animals have mortal souls, they are not rational. The animal’s soul dies with it when it dies. Because of the Hypostatic Union, the union of Jesus Christ’s human and Divine natures, Jesus Christ has a rational soul. God is pure spirit. Now, the comment: “Intelligent” life created in a laboratory. You assume that it is possible to (God creates, man invents or discovers) create “intelligent” life. The person is immutable. A person is a person always. “Intelligent” life of necessity is a person. Can man create, invent or discover a person that God has not created first? Any life that man can discover in a laboratory will be animal life with a mortal soul. Animals have no conscience and therefore, even the devils don’t want their mortal souls. This is not to say that animals may not be possessed of demons, only that the possession is not contingent upon being discovered in a laboratory. These thoughts have led me to understand that the chimeras, half man and half human, being brought into existence have animal souls, can never be a person or have a person’s soul with intelligence. Chimeras are an abuse of the human body and violate the laws of nature and nature’s God.

  • Sorry, Paul, I mistakenly wrote: “chimeras, half man and half human,” must read: “chimeras, half man and half animal,” being brought into existence have animal souls, can never be a person or have a person’s soul with intelligence.

  • Yes, Mary, your explanation is logical. I will change my terms. Man may produce out of inanimate matter – either silicon based or carbon based – cognitive animate matter. This matter may possess mortal, non-rational souls, and may even be possessed demonically. But it cannot truly be sentient or possessed of an eternal, rational soul as man is. It may mimick cognitive reasoning as a computer can operate in accordance with the parameters of its software program. It may mimick living systems in being animate, but it is not created, I.e., made from nothing and Godd-infused with life.

  • Mary-
    while it’s not a binding teaching, when the case of human/animal chimeras came up in the UK the Church authorities said they’ve got a right to life, and at the absolute least those made with mostly human DNA should be assumed to be human embryos and treated accordingly. (They shouldn’t be made, of course– that’s worse than mutilation, along the lines of deliberately inducing massive mutation in an innocent baby!– but once they’re alive, that life should be respected.)

  • On an aside– I see no reason why God couldn’t give a soul to any sentient life, no matter what humans did wrong in the creation of that life.
    A child born of rape has a soul, although their creation was a violation of natural order rights; an kid conceived by artificial insemination has a soul, although their creation was not natural; an IVF kid has a soul, though their conception was even more unnatural; a kid with Down’s has a soul, although their DNA is altered by chance; why would a child that has both the altered DNA and the sinned against history of a child of rape not have a soul? Of course, I’m very fond of Augustine’s logic with the dog-headed men, and like to play it safe, so assume anything that acts rationally thus has a soul. ^.^

    Strictly speaking, I don’t think humans can create life.
    Did you ever hear the old joke about a bunch of scientists going to God and telling Him “We don’t need You anymore, we can make life in the lab.”
    God says “Show me and if you can, I will go.”
    The scientists strut in, grab a handful of dirt– and God says “Hold on. Get your own dirt.” All we can do is take the playset and do stuff it isn’t supposed to do, not actually create a new playset.

    Dang it, where were you guys when I did those posts several months back? The reasoning you’re putting out is the kind of stuff I was hoping for, rather than some random guy constantly shifting the subject to his personal religious philosophy, and a lot of argument by assertion that it can’t happen. -.-

    **EDIT** changed a phrase slightly.

  • Foxfire: “I see no reason why God couldn’t give a soul to any sentient life, no matter what humans did wrong in the creation of that life.” The rational human soul IS sentient human life. The sentience comes with and from the soul, God’s life in man. With the human being, his being, his very existence, his human life is an act of his rational, immortal soul. Where there is no soul, there is no human life or growth. There would be no abortion, if there were no human soul growing into a larger human body in the womb. Abortion denies the newly begotten human person Justice. And speaking of chimeras,
    “(They shouldn’t be made, of course– that’s worse than mutilation, along the lines of deliberately inducing massive mutation in an innocent baby!– but once they’re alive, that life should be respected.)” This is transhumanism and it violates all civilization because it denies the human person the rational souls’ free will to give informed consent to the horrific mutations being exercised upon it. It is not legal nor can it be moral to violate the human being even with his informed consent.
    “The scientists strut in, grab a handful of dirt– and God says “Hold on. Get your own dirt.” All we can do is take the playset and do stuff it isn’t supposed to do, not actually create a new playset.”
    I hope that your post will answer Paul W. Primavera’s search for knowledge. I found it very informative, especially the part about the Catholic Church’s teaching about the ethics of life.
    “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” God has joined the human body with the human rational, immortal soul at procreation.

  • In the Old Testament, a man having intercourse with an animal, it is called beastiality, Mosaic law proscribed that BOTH were to be put to death. There would be no chimeras, half-human, half-animals in Israel. It is frightening what God will do to us for what we are doing to His image in man.

  • This is transhumanism and it violates all civilization because it denies the human person the rational souls’ free will to give informed consent to the horrific mutations being exercised upon it. It is not legal nor can it be moral to violate the human being even with his informed consent.

    Of course– doesn’t really touch on if the person thus made will have a soul (we probably can’t tell, anyways) or if we should assume they do. (obviously, I think we should… but I am also assuming that chimeras thus created will be able to behave like rational beings)

    I found it very informative, especially the part about the Catholic Church’s teaching about the ethics of life.

    Thank you for reading it!

    I had a half-formed post about Neanderthals to follow it up– we don’t know if they were people, too, or not; we just know modern science classifies them as a different group, and that they seem to have been perfectly able to breed effectively with modern humans– but it’s fun to think about, theoretically.

  • Foxfire: “Of course– doesn’t really touch on if the person thus made will have a soul (we probably can’t tell, anyways) or if we should assume they do. The human person is immutable. A person is a person is a person, forever. A human being is a person composed of body and rational, immortal soul. “…while it’s not a binding teaching, when the case of human/animal chimeras came up in the UK the Church authorities said they’ve got a right to life, and at the absolute least those made with mostly human DNA should be assumed to be human embryos and treated accordingly.” I agree. “(obviously, I think we should… but I am also assuming that chimeras thus created will be able to behave like rational beings)” All sin is irrational. Then, you are saying that the chimera has a conscience. A conscience means the chimera has a rational soul and a will to choose to do good or evil.

  • Figuring out if they’re doing it or not is the hard part– I’ve got folks who think their dogs are moral beings, when it seems pretty clear to me that they just know when something will get them yelled at.

  • Paul W. Primavera: “made from nothing and God-infused with life.” Created-made from nothing and God infused with God’s life” God made all things and keeps them in existence. God sent His only Son, Jesus to make us human. I am a child of God.

  • Foxfire: To know, to love and to serve God. Baltimore Catechism. Why am I created? It would appear that your friend’s dog is “moral” because his owners are moral. Now, you’ve got a friend who believes that 156 fish jumped into St. Peter’s net that day because these fish wanted to be eaten by Our Lord.

  • Dawkins shares with two other popularisers from the 80s, the others being SJ Gould and Steven Weinberg the distinction of being world-class storytellers with the unfortunate gift of spinning tales out of nothing at all. Take Dawkin’s book “The Blind Watchmaker” in which he makes great play of Rev Paley’s observation that if one were to come across a watch in the fields it is indicative that a Mind is behind it. Dawkins will have none of it. According to him, we cannot infer any such thing, the watch may well have been the product of a series of accidents. Now is there a person alive, who would seriously imagine upon coming across a Rolex watch in the park, that it could well have been the product of a series of fortuitious accidents rather than an artifact created by craftsmen? But it seems that there are enough people around to accept Dawkin’s version of events. Once they swallow that camel, there is no need to stint at gnats. And Dawkins piles it in, with his silly computer biomorphs circa 1984. It is now 2012 with computer and graphics cards far more powerful than in the 80s but have any of these biomorphs taken flight? Transformed into butterflies perhaps?

    Way back in the 70s Marvin Minsky claimed that only the limitations of hardware and software was preventing the MIT guys from creating a computer equal in capability to the human brain. In the 70s a byte of memory cost $1, a computer equipped with 1 MB RAM would set one back $1,000,000 in 1975 dollars. The highest speed achieved were in the the order of MHz. The largest programs could not have have exceeded 50,000 lines of code. Today a computer costing around $1,000 has 4GB RAM, 1 Terabyte of hard disk space, runs on 4 processors at 2.3 to 3GHz with the Windows 7 software kicking in at 50 to 60 million lines of code. Well, what are you waiting for Dr Minsky? Where are the artificial brains?

    This age suffers from too much credulousness at the pronouncements of scientists. In this they are abetted by the worshipful stance of the press which has long since given up any pretense of objective reporting and functions instead as groupies and propaganda artists.

  • The attempt to substitute science for religion or philosophy is a pernicious superstition of our times Ivan. Prior generations usually had a healthier attitude, understanding that science was useful in its sphere but not the be all and end all. I have always treasured this quote from Churchill: “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Science will not save us, since that is not the purpose of science, just as science can never answer the truly major questions of our existence: Why am I here? What is right and what is wrong? What is the meaning of life? How should I live? etc.

  • I agree Donald, but I believe there is something more sinister going on. The old line atheist had to explain Design, the religious man the existence of Evil. Of the two I would argue that it is the religious person that has the more difficult task, since pain and suffering has a more immediate and unbearable impact on our lives with the difficulty that an omnipotent God has allowed things to come to such a pass. For many years now the atheists have already had the upper hand in the public arena. The new atheists are inured to tragic existential questions, one does not hear that note in their latest outpourings, what they want is the destruction of of the position of Christianity in the US. They claim to be against all religions but it is Christianity with its moral demands that sticks in their gullets. The American Protestants instinctively understood this hence the seriousness of their reaction, Catholics because they were afraid of being made to look ridiculous were somewhat more ambiguous.

  • Ivan: “Dawkins shares with two other popularisers from the 80s, the others being SJ Gould and Steven Weinberg the distinction of being world-class storytellers with the unfortunate gift of spinning tales out of nothing at all.”
    It is all over but the shouting for the atheist. “WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” CREATED, not born. The state gives us citizenship and a tax bill. God gives us Himself.

Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

Saturday, March 24, AD 2012

31 Responses to Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

  • Carter – a creep. Pure and simple.

  • A great post, suffused with righteous anger against a self-righteous ex-president.


  • Evangelicals are often accused of being “anti-Catholic”, but the accusation is generally aimed at the more fundamentalist-leaning of the Evangelicals (i.e. the conservative ones, with whom, interestingly enough, Catholics most often find themselves allied on matters of both traditional theology and politics).

    But I can attest that there is no more anti-Catholic Evangelical than the left-leaning Evangelical. They have a disordered view of “liberty” and the so-called “priesthood of the believer” that causes them to have a visceral reaction to ANY authority over individual conscience, be it evangelical fundamentalism or the Catholic Magisterium. They see an ordained priesthood and religious hierarchy, especially that of the Catholic Church, to be fundamentally a threat to liberty of conscience (i.e. their “right” to make up out of whole cloth theological justifications for their personal and political predilictions).

    Jimmy Carter, as a left-leaning Evangelical, has always been a bigot. The only people he despises more than Catholics are Jews.

  • And, indeed, an excellent post, Don!

  • “Carter – a creep. Pure and simple.”

    Unfortunately the future if Democrats continue to win.

  • You just can’t make this stuff up, can you, Don?

    And there’s more!

    Through the Year with Jimmy Carter: 366 Daily Meditations from the 39th President by Jimmy Carter

    Gift of Peace: The Jimmy Carter Story by Elizabeth Raum

    How low Zondervan has sunk for the almighty dollar – they are trying to get liberals to buy their wares, but liberals really don’t believe anyways!

  • Wow, this man sounds seriously deranged. Jimmy Carter certainly came across as a petty and peevish man, but I thought his derangement had more to do with jealousy over R Reagan’s success and his later break with the Baptists over their strong support for Israel. Now it appears that the man was crazy from the beginning. Imagine lecturing JP11 and comparing him to the genocidal maniac Khomeini after having failed to provide succour to the Shah. A man with some decency would have kept his mouth shut after that.

  • Incompetence+senility=Carter

  • Well, this post is going into the home school curriculum school in my household so that my children will be able to appreciate some of the contributions of JPII’s Papacy. It will also serve nicely to have Carter as a backdrop on how far one go astray from the truth when unhinged from Mater et Magistra.

  • Two observations.

    The current occupant of the White House is worse: his corruption and ineptitude are destroying us.

    This is reason 665 that you won’t be going to Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • I see no reason to accept his account of angry exchanges with JP II. The Vatican isn’t that secretive. Much of the substance and almost all of the tenor of discussions between a Pope and other public figures is known within hours. If Carter’s account is to be believed, it was a carefully guarded secret for more than three decades. Not likely says me. Even the timing of the discussions is off… Liberation Theology didn’t get real purchase until the early Eighties. I’m sure the seeds were sown in the Seventies but it hadn’t become an issue while Carter was President. Finally, this is the first time I’ve heard the word “harshness” applied to JP II. We are being asked to believe that a man who actively petitioned to have his would-be assassin released was “harsh” in his assessment of his fellow priest’s misguided but well-intentioned attets to right economic injustice in the Americas.

    Carter is lying. It cannot have happened as he says it did.

  • “Carter is lying. It cannot have happened as he says it did.”

    I suspect you are correct G-Veg. This may well be another example of Carter’s ever active fantasy life.

  • Liberation theology was well underway in the seventies; Carter, who was, if nothing else, an avid reader, would likely have known about it. I’d bet that some such conversation did occur between him and the Pope, though he might be “embellishing” it after all these years.

    I can vouch for the fellow-feeling among loyal Catholics and conservative evangelicals; I witness it all the time. Check out the homeschooling movement, for example. Or the pro-life movement. A loyal Catholic and a loyal Baptist have far more in common with one another than either of them has in common with those among their churches who worship the secular god Belial.

  • A woman priest cannot espouse the Bride of Christ.

  • I particularly like the eight things the author lists as accomplishments of Pope John Paul II, but in terms of Encyclicals, the Pope’s work was much more noteworthy than was mentioned here. I also think that JPII also had a major positive impact on non-Catholics, including non-Catholic Christians, Jews and Muslims. JPII presented a different image of Catholicism to the world. One of his Encyclicals I like the most is Fides et Ratio, although there were many that could be cited.

  • With respect Mr. Esolen, an avid reader he is but I doubt that the narrow subject of Liberation Theology was high on his reading list in 1978. Even if it was, I seriously doubt he confronted JP II on anything. That just isn’t how those conversations “go”… Not with Pelosi, not with the Soviets, and not with Mugabe. Are we to believe that Carter was such a forceful personality as to school the Pope on anything? Carter may be so senile he belives his own tales but I don’t believe them.

  • Carter always was incredibly narcissistic and I while his attempts to project himself as humble, fair, and caring largely failed with most observers, IMO his facade born more out of pathology rather than mere political marketing.

    I agree with those who believe he likely lying or taking great license with many of these statements. However, I can believe he understood the Liberation Theology movement in the 70’s. As president he had to deal with policy matters regarding Latin America and was surely briefed often on happenings there. You simply could not escape any discussion of events and power struggles in Latin America without knowing about the underpinnings behind how some Catholics could justify to themselves being Marxist revolutionaries and why other dictatorial regimes would view those people as enemies.

  • That the poor man wrote his own version of the Bible is a great scandal.

  • I think it’s telling that many people refer to the late Pope as “John Paul the Great”,
    but no one has ever seriously suggested that Jimmy Carter bear such a distinction.

    C-Veg’s take on Carter’s account strikes me as the most reasonable– it’s highly unlikely
    such a remarkable exchange could be buried for decades.

  • G-Veg– I doubt the veracity of this account as well. At the height of the cold war, with Carter essentially surrendering our moral superiority over Marxism, Carter betrayed a strategic ally in the struggle against communism. Carter then saw to the return of Khomeini from his exile in Paris, a move which in a series of tightly related events leading directly to the current state of affairs in Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, once part of a pluralistic society, have been killed and tortured, and a diaspora ensued.

    In 1978 Carter didn’t see Khomeini as he now claims. He held that judgment for the Shah. As for Catholics, as opposed to leftist who claim the faith, I am sure Carter does and did hold such bigoted views. So, 32 years later, nothing has changed and we once again have another Carter on roids as president.

  • Cthemfly makes an excellent point above, about Iran. I was an undergraduate at Princeton during the years when Britain and the United States were busy betraying Iran into the hands of the mullahs. One of the stupidest moves the Left ever made was to engineer the ouster of the Shah of Iran in favor of Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France. One Richard Falk, a Princeton leftist and professor of political science, was instrumental in the coup. I don’t hold any brief for the Shah as a good man, but will only note that he had personally bankrolled Britain in the early seventies when that country was broke. In this life you don’t often get to deal with allies who are both saintly and powerful. Carter did well with Sadat and Begin, but flubbed badly with the Soviets and with Iran. Ronald Reagan would not make the same mistakes, for which the Left in America never forgave him.

  • Breathtaking. Really beautiful, the post and the comments.

  • I can imagine how his Old Testament introduction begins:

    “Bear with me–this part’s pretty Jew-y.”

  • Professor Esolen,

    Thank you for responding to C-Veg with the facts. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi went into exile on 16th January 1979, in the middle of the following a series of militantly anti-Shah demonstrations the first of which occurred in October 1977, in the middle of the Carter administration. He did not come to the United States until late October 1979, and was allowed into the country to undergo surgical treatment.

    On a related note, as a former enlisted submariner in the U.S. Navy, subsequently commissioned, I would have to rate Mr. McClarey’s assessment of Mr. Carter as a bit on the generous side. Carter repeatedly demonstrated an inability to think beyond a limited set of fixed policies and procedures.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer, LCDR, USN [ret]

  • Ronald Reagan spoke of the oil off the continental shelf, that is, three miles off the coast, in international waters. Our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, signed the LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty. See Eagle Forum, Heritage Foundation, Obama has signed an Executive Order giving the U.N. the ocean) the LOST treaty with the U.N. giving the United Nations all mineral rights under the sea and imposing a fee for sailing upon the ocean. Who owns the ocean that it is given away to entities not favorable to America? Certainly, the country does not own the ocean that it can “give it away”. All free public lands and waterways are owned by each and every person, in joint and common tenancy, and held in trust for all future generations, our constitutional posterity, our global posterity, by a free people.
    Congress ratifies treaties at the will of the people. These monsters in office need to be exorcised.

  • One of the stupidest moves the Left ever made was to engineer the ouster of the Shah of Iran in favor of Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France. One Richard Falk, a Princeton leftist and professor of political science, was instrumental in the coup.

    I have to say that is the strangest interpretation of events in Iran over the period running from October 1977 to February 1979 that I have ever heard. The regime suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in the face of massive public protest. That is not something terribly unprecedented. People in the Shah’s camarilla later accused Mr. Carter’s envoy Gen. Robert Huyser of putting the kibosh on a supposed military coup intended to forestall the fall of the interim ministry the Shah had left in place. Gen. Huyser was career military, not a cat’s paw of ‘the Left’. Richard Falk was producing insipid articles for The Nation and the Institute for Policy Studies. It is difficult to believe he had any influence on anyone but their subscribers.


    The babble about liberation theology is a clue that Carter retrospectively re-imagined his exchanges with the Holy Father.

    What is pathetic about all this is that an old man long steeped in the milieu of Southern protestantism and in the Bible as it is used in that milieu should

    1. Have a habit of using the same prism to view quite disparate phenomena, in fact the same prism a creature like Ellen Goodman might use; and

    2. Have so little in the way of a critical assessment of the inanities of the age.

    With eighty-seven years of living and a grounding in Sacred Scripture, he should be able to offer the young something better than this.

  • Pingback: Fan Mail | The American Catholic
  • I wrote to Zondervan Publishing about its publishing the Jimmy Carter Study Bible and how I would now boycott their products in the future. I also gave them a link to this blog post. A person at that organization gave me the following response, but did not identify him / herself. I find the lack of personal responsibility very telling. No name. No “Sincerely Yours, XXXXXX Y.” No nothing.

    “As with any public figure, it is to be expected that equally sincere Christians will have different assessments of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and his efforts to promote peace and justice in his post-presidential years. Zondervan respects the fact that, like no other president in recent memory, Jimmy Carter has sought to express in words and live out in deeds his profession of “born-again” Christian faith. It’s for these reasons we are proud to publish these titles. This is fully consistent with our 80-year mission to  publish books by leading voices in the evangelical Christian community, books that glorify Jesus Christ and promote biblical principles.”

  • Blessed Pope John Paul II or Jimmy Carter, who you gonna call! Bl JP II we love you. If Ford hadn’t pardoned Nixon, a move that history has judged to be the correct decision but which cost him the election, there would have been no Carter presidency. When we’ve been dead ten thousand years the name of Bl, Saint by then, JP II will be praised in litany and prayers of intercession and God will still be granting miracles through his intercession while Jimmy’s only claim to fame will be he is listed as one of the long ago presidents of the late sometimes great United States of America. JP II we love you, JP II we love you.

  • …Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France.Tony Esolen

    Khomeini spent most of his exile from Iran in neighboring Iraq.

Louisiana Loves Rick

Saturday, March 24, AD 2012

Santorum needed a big victory today in Louisiana, and he got it.  The polls closed at 8:00 PM and the networks called the Pelican state for Santorum immediately.  According to the exit polls Santorum won every demographic except those earning over 200k who went for Romney.  Vote percentages look like they will be in the range of 46-28, with Romney taking the 28.  As in Illinois, Gingrich was a non-factor. This race is supposed to be all over according to most pundits, but I guess someone neglected to tell the good voters of Louisiana.

Continue reading...

64 Responses to Louisiana Loves Rick

  • Romney will still likely be the nominee, but maybe this will signal to him that conservative values do matter.

  • Hey, but Newt did beat Ron Paul out for third place. So at least he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.

  • Just more proof that the South is full of anti-Mormon h8ters!

    /typical Romneybot

  • Camp Romney, so full of class:

    But Romney aides were on the job Saturday night. In Green Bay, a Romney spokesman, Ryan Williams, showed up at the bar where Santorum was holding his election-night event, to make a few disparaging comments and put the Romney campaign’s spin on events. “This is the saddest, most pathetic victory party I’ve ever seen,” an AP reporter quoted Williams saying. “Where are all the supporters?”

    Yeah, they are so unconcerned about Santorum that they are now crashing his events in an effort to belittle him. Sure signs of a confident frontrunner.

  • God bless you Rick!

  • Still holding on to the barest of hopes. Hang tough Santorum. Some of us dissident Catholics, from the right, are pulling for you.

  • The hope and a likely one is that Romney will be blocked from 1,144 and this goes to Tampa. However, the question remains, Rick or Newt?

    Rick Santorum is happy that the Republican Party violates the principle of subsidiarity:

    One Catholic wants to oppose those who want to reign in the profligate spending; the other Catholic wants the spending reigned in. What is the Social Doctrine about stewardship again?

    How Catholic is it to frivolously spend other people’s money when in a position of trust? It seems the only time Rick was against spending was when Newt was Speaker:

    Private manipulation of the money supply at a whim based on nothing is usury. What does the Church teach about usury? This video is hard to hear, but Rick says that we want inflation!!!!

    Voting for Title X may not be avoidable because it is embedded in larger bills; however, should a Catholic be proud of funding contraception, especially through the largest abortion provider? This is on Tom Woods’ website (although it is a clip from Fox News.) Woods is a libertarian, which is a problematic materialist ideology for Catholics; however, Dr. Woods is a faithful Catholic and as regards this issue there is no conflict with CSD.

    Me thinks perhaps Rick’s personal Catholic faith does not translate into his politics. This is probably a lack of aptitude; rather than a flaw in principle. Do you want a candidate who lacks capacity as a leader? Rick seems to be easily swayed by Washington politics. I think we may be better off with proven leadership. Newt has the record, the capacity, the leadership and since his last time in office, he has come into full communion with the Church. Think and pray hard, before supporting Santorum.

  • The media have already explained that this victory in Louisiana doesn’t mean a damned thing. They’ll say the same thing about any other electoral success Santorum may have.
    And if, God forbid, his campaign ever does show signs of growing vitality, they will ask him about abortion or some such thing. He will answer honestly, and they will then jump all over him for lack of focus, for not giving proper attention to the Real Issues that Concern the American People.

  • AK, your dedication to Gingirich is admirable. The man has won two states, and is basically battling Ron Paul or third place in most of the rest. He set up camp in Louisiana for a week, and he won about 16% of the vote. He has as much of a chance to be the nominee as I do. Even if it comes to a convention battle, the rules would actually prohibit Gingrich (and Paul) from being on the the ballot, and I doubt that a guy who won 2 states during the entire process is somehow going to come out of a brokered convention as the nominee.

  • Paul, there is no need to admire my dedication, as a Catholic I am committed to lost causes, after all, at the request of the Sanhedrin, the Romans killed my God – what could be more hopeless than that?

    Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible, although not in the primary, but at Tampa. The fact is that until he is out, he’s the one. I will consider Santorum (despite the problems I posted above) and then I may have to move on to Goode, assuming he wins the CP nomination. I pray it does not come to that. Stranger things have happened in past conventions.

    Nevertheless, no one can discount Newt’s commitment and service to this country and as long as he fights for us, I will support him. My naturally skeptical temperament, leads me to think voter manipulation is going on. Why are Romney and Santorum so afraid to debate Newt? Why should I have confidence in either of them to debate and defeat Obama when they cannot even stand on a public, unscripted stage with a colleague?

    I fear Santorum is being set-up as a patsy and for that matter Romney is probably just another Dole/McCain. As Obama sets-up an anti-Church, it seems those who fear organized religion have never been Catholic, we are far from organized.

  • There is a lot of interest in the Republican primary. Although turnout was very low (at my polling place, the workers were delighted to see someone show up), it was in fact a record turnout for a Republican primary in the state. If voter interest remains this high, and turnout follows, I don’t see how Barack Obama will win.

  • Romney’s turnout is less than McCain’s.

    Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    Newt’s turnout, when he is given a chance to speak, is high.

    If we want to beat BHO, we need to have more debates and let Newt speak to the people instead of hearing him on the Mitt Romney News Network formerly known as Fox News.

  • Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    ….Kinda like Limbaugh’s?

  • I didn’t know Limbaugh was in the race.

  • I didn’t know the race was won by who put on the best show when he talks.

  • Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible

    Newt is not going to win three more states. He’s not going to win one more state. His main base of support was in the southeast, and he has now failed even there with two exceptions.

    If a man walks into the convention having won two states and somehow is selected as the party’s nominee, then the primary process should be disbanded post haste. I say this as someone who far prefers Gingrich to Romney. But Gingrich has shown absolutely no ability actually win votes. It would be a grave injustice for him to be the nominee barring a miracle comeback, a comeback that would merely distance him from Ron Paul.

  • Paul, you have a right to political pragmatism, I am far more hopeful and I know the outcome is God’s, but I have to account for my actions in this moment. I don’t know that Romney will win, reason indicates that is likely, but not inevitable. If I relied on reason alone – I’d have a tough time being Catholic.

    Newt is right and he’s in the fight – I will support him until there is a winner. Victory or death!

  • Wow. The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding. Santorum is by no means a “perfect candidate.” It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    It appears as if there is an unwillingness to look at our options on the other hand. Here we have two candidates, both are Catholic. Neither one of them is lily white. Everyone has their own collection of weaknesses and flaws for every person is human, and last I checked, no such being is perfect (Blessed Mother aside, dear Catholics). Sure, it just so happens that Gingrich’s past has the appearance of being quite contrary to the ideal moral code as projected so wonderfully by Mr. Santorum. Sure, he has had a number of wives and perhaps a few mistresses. But who said that there is no forgiveness for sinners? Are any of you, dear Catholics, aware of the fact that Gingrich has repented of his past and his marriage is validly sanctioned by the Church? When questioned on the issue of gay marriage, Gingrich was the FIRST and ONLY candidate to say that marriage is a SACRAMENT between a man and a woman. Hey, and aren’t there two Catholic candidates out there? Hmm… Last I checked there was.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil. And yes, dear Catholics, there is more at stake in this insane world at this insane time then prolife issues (of which, by the way, Gingrich also has proven to be a valiant defender). The world looks to the United States for its leadership, and we need a man of character who is not afraid to stand up for Liberty and Justice for all.

  • American Knight, well said. Kudos!

  • I continue to support Romney for President as do many of my fellow Catholics. Obviously as a Catholic, I wish Romney would convert to Catholicism. And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

  • , you have a right to political pragmatism,

    If this were about pragmatism, I would not be voting for Rick Santorum and refusing to support Mitt Romney.

    The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding.

    Followed by an endless stream of sarcasm.

    Newt’s previous marriage peccadilloes are not the main reason I have chosen to support Santorum, and certainly not the reason he’s being rejected by 80+ percent of the GOP electorate. So that entire paragraph is rather beside the point.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil.

    That’s true. It’s a good thing that’s not the principle reason people are supporting Santorum.

    And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

    Ah, the arrogance of Romney supporters. Totally working to change the minds of would-be Republican voters across the land. Maybe one day one of you guys will provide an actual, substantive reason to support this man in the general. Until then, yawn.

  • Geeze, Paul, don’t you realize the only possible reason folks would pick Rick over Mittens is religious bias? It can’t be that folks actually agree with Santorum, or think Romney would lose, is unreliable or doesn’t really believe a lot of what he claims…..

    Also, it’s very unkind of you to ignore the hard work that so many of our commenters put into making their strawmen! Like they say… it’s not so much what folks don’t know, as what they know that just ain’t so.

  • To support Romney for President is to tell your only daughter that her $15,000 wedding dinner is Wonder Bread and mashed potatoes.

    It’s like saying “We went on the celebrity-spotting vacation of a lifetime to North Dakota (with apologies to that fine, booming, independent state.)

    It’s like saving up to get the car you’ve wanted ever since you were a kid – an ’86 Buick Regal.

    It’s like believing that Barbie and Ken really are the representation of what ideal neighbors should be, anatomy and all.

    Enough with all this Bald Eagle business! The national symbol is The Sheep! See how powerful our nominee is!

    “Well, Bob, who’s our guy?” “Well, Bob, we can’t have anybody who doesn’t walk, talk, comb, smell, spend or dress exactly like we do, eh?” “Well, Bob, that’s right, because difference is bad.” “Well, Bob, truer words were never spoken, because being different and thinking indpendently lead to questions of authority.” “Well, Bob, you got that right, and we sure don’t want our authority questioned.” “Well, Bob . . .”

    The reason Romney supporters like his press so much is because they and newspapers are basically informed the same way. Copy after copy after copy after copy after copy . . .

    Vote Romney, because thinking is for wigged-out non-conformists!

    The nominee should be Romney. After all, the current White House occupant is the exact opposite of what all moral, freedom-loving Americans would want as the chief executive, and the GOP still believes in a fair fight.

    Ahh. That’s better.

  • True, Foxfier. Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

  • Paul, I figured sarcasm would convey the message effectively as it seems to be the language used here.

    Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start. Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support. And it is not just the media, but the Republican establishment as well.

  • When asked, most people state they would love to see Gingrich bring truth and clarity to debate Obama, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of this Administration. it seems to me that Gingrich is doing just that…speaking truth directly to the Obama Administration and exposing their tactics and lies. Gingrich has been given talents and gifts from God to use for Gods’ glory. Often, though not perfectly, Gingrich anticipates the direction of the Left. (I think he has learned from the sitting on the couch with Pelosi incident). Two recent examples are energy and Trayvon Martin. Gingrich began articulating the facts about the current energy supply situation and followed with providing a clear plan about how to change direction resulting in decreased energy cost. His speaking Truth to Power brought President Obama out of the White House on a Green Energy Speaking Tour to defend his position. Newt then goes to expose the falsity of the Presidents’ position with FACTS…history. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,”- Winston Churchill. The second example pertains to the tragic Trayvon Martin death. The President stated that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin. Gingrich immediately responded recognizing that the agenda of the White House was to exploit this tragedy in the name of Racism. (Remember how the word racist was used to describe those who would not vote for Obama. In fact, many Catholics also used the racist label.) Gingrich stated that the President is trying to make this into a racial incident. He further added “It is not a question of who the young man looked like….any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background.” Santorum before knowing the facts (which is not acceptable for a Presidential Candidate in this stage of the game) stated of Zimmerman that he “has a very sick mind” and a “malicious” motive. More pandering? More superior rhetoric? (Santorum has a history of pandering and of compromising life positions to be a team player.) Has any one viewed the recent comments by the Black Panthers? Please do, it will send chills down your spine. The Black Panthers are now calling for the death of Mr. Zimmerman and Presidential Candidate Santorum played right into the set-up. (Remember the incident in on Election Day when the Black Panthers were involved in voter intimidation through violence?) I wonder if that is why Obama needs 1 Billion dollars to spend on his re-election campaign? Perhaps Acorn needs a little financial motivation to ensure Obama has another 4 years in the White House? THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES! Wake up Catholics!!! Examine all the facts and examine current behavior. If you don’t, we are doomed to repeat history at the cost of liberty and lives.

  • Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    It’s not so.

    He’s a SoCon/FisCon that seems to truly believe his own rhetoric, is idealistic without being unwilling to try to be realistic, and isn’t willing to disavow his religion just to get votes.

    Heaven forbid we have an unapologetic believer– must attack, claim that the only reason people support him is the religion! Even though, oops, Newt is Catholic as well….

  • Yeah…

    Foxfier, it is so nice to know that you “agree” with Santorum. And yeah, I guess when a post makes sense it has to be the result of “hard work.”

  • …and oops! The world knows Newt is Catholic. He just runs on more substance than this mere fact.

  • Don’t worry, Boston, when you start making good sense, we’ll let you know. Try making arguments with facts and avoid making up stuff about why others would support a candidate you don’t prefer.

  • Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start


    Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support.

    Yes, Santorum is just loved and revered by the establishment and the media.

    Look guys, is it time to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason that voters have rejected Gingrich is because they have evaluated him and found him wanting? I know it’s easier to just chalk Gingrich’s failure – and yes, with 3/5 of the primaries in the books, we can call him a failed candidate – up to media negativity or some dark conspiracy, but the fact is the man just has failed to demonstrate that he is more than just a one trick pony.

    By the way, I say this to Santorum supporters as well. If Mitt Romney wins the nomination he will have done so with the aid of establishment support, of course. But at some point we actually have to hold voters themselves to account for their decisions, and a plurality (though nowhere near a majority) of GOP voters have expressed their support for Romney. There’s no use throwing a hissy fit about it. Accept it, though we don’t have to accept the candidate they give us.

  • By the way, Gingrich fans have officially become as shrill as Paulistas.

  • Foxfier,

    Ha… Oh of course I don’t make sense. I’m presenting another point of view. We must dismiss people who disagree as…well…stupid people who “make stuff up.” Haha hey, sorry, I’m laughing at you.

  • No Boston, you’ve just failed to offer any substantive rebuttal to anything anyone has said.

  • Hey, Beantown:

    It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    Next time you want to discuss the merits of a particular candidate, how about letting the proponents of that candidate explain why they support him? Instead of, say, handing them risible talking points that you think *really* explain why they want to vote for him?

  • I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why. Brilliant! Boston seems quite cogent to me. Of course, I am Newt-bot in the mold of Paul-bots. Right? Could it be that those with no moral grounding and a natural thirst for liberty are attracted to Dr. Paul because he presents a consistent, principled position (despite that it is strictly materialist and therefore flawed). Could it be that those of us with a moral grounding support Speaker Gingrich for the same reason? May we be wary of flexible candidates and yes, I include Rick, although not as significantly as the snake-oil salesman Myth RINO-Money.

    The fact is that Romney is a terrible candidate and the only chance he has of winning is because BHO may be his own worst enemy. Good job Republicans put up a milquetoast, deceitful candidate and hope that Obama’s ineptitude takes on Bidenesque proportions (needs be in order to overcome the Fourth Estate’s commitment to severe progressivism.) The same media that is tuned in the other direction against Newt (that may tell you something if you think about it, especially when you throw in the Mitt Romney Network formerly known as Fox News.) Speaking of Biden, no not Joe ‘BFD’, Rick ‘right-wing Biden’ Santorum. He is almost as terrible a candidate as Romney, in a different way.

    I do not call into question Mr. Santorum’s faith or the personal practice of it, I am merely saying that he may have failed to discern his true vocation because he is an awful public representative. The record is clear, he is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand, before he came into communion and while he was a vile sinner (like most of the rest of us) was more effective at actuating Catholic Social Doctrine in public policy and now he is a proud defender of Holy Mother Church and quite pithy and articulate (No BS.)

    There are two Catholic men in this race – there is only one Catholic candidate and his name is Newt!

  • The record is clear, [Santorum] is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand,

    Welfare reform rebuts the first half, and rather thoroughly.

    With respect to the second, what was Newt’s record on Title X, and if he voted in favor of it, has he repudiated it?

  • And to call Rick a “right wing Biden” is…well, it refutes itself.

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative and in some ways against the party that ousted him shortly after the success. Title X is an insidious evil and I think most pro-life reps have had to vote for it within the larger appropriations bills; however, Newt has never said he is proud for having done it, Rick has (rather Bidenesque, no?)

    Again, Rick may be a moral guy and faithful Catholic, I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity, Democratic sabotage and a natural impulse for traditional people to strongly dislike Myth RINO-Money, but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win. The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    How is that a gaffe? Or is it that only Newt is permitted to express contempt for the media?

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative

    Speaking of bovine excrement, the Gingrich hagriophers would have you believe that Newt single-handedly carried the day on this issue, and no other Republicans had any input. Not exactly the case.

    but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity,

    He’s sorely lacking as a candidate? Unlike your guy, he’s actually winning elections. He’s connecting with the voters in a way that Gingrich has been unable to. And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win

    Could be that the fact that he hasn’t, you know, actually won anything (other than SC and GA).

    The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win

    Yes, except for the 25 of 27 states that they’ve won between them, there’s no way these two could win.

    else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

  • The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    Yeah, why won’t they go up against the third place guy who’s really good at talking?

    If they lose, they’re hurt, and if they win… um… who cares?

    I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why.


    1) I’m the only one that mentioned sense and Boston, and I said he didn’t make good sense, in direct response to his unsupported claim that making sense is why we don’t like his claims. (Part of his attempt to put his own arm out of socket while patting himself on the back. Complements really should be offered by others….)
    2) If you read back, you should find that the stated problem is he makes flatly false claims and doesn’t bother to use facts or good arguments.

  • You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

    I took it to mean a one-on-one event.

    Because “Newt can’t argue his way out of a paper bag” is part of why folks don’t like him. *cough*SARCASM*cough*
    Most folks I’ve heard talk about Newt will even specifically mention how good he is at talking, and especially admiring that he challenges the assumptions that the overwhelmingly liberal debate leaders offered.

    And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    Ding ding ding.

  • No, Santorum wrote the welfare reform bill.

    And, seriously–blowing up at an Obama suck-up (this is the same guy who asked the President what he found “enchanting” about the job) reporter at the NY Times is disqualifying now? Bush called Adam Clymer an “a–hole”–quite accurately. Recognizing that the media is not your friend is a good attribute in a GOP candidate.

    his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity

    Repeating this over and over doesn’t make it true.

    Finally, the splinter of Title X support is rather less than the beam of supporting embryonic stem-cell research:

  • They won 25 of 27 states amongst themselves, not against Obama – that’s like winning in a team scrimmage, and expecting that to be a predictor of your chances at the Super Bowl.

    Right now, it seems the best thing the GOP has going for it is Obama, and Obama the GOP. How that will play out, who knows (my guess is it depends upon the price of gasoline in October).

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    Santorum the consistent conservative, hmmm?
    He is proud that the Republicans moved away from smaller government that does less. That sounds pretty progressive, not very conservative.

    Newt is not winning because he fails to connect, but we are accused of having Paul-like support for Newt. Whatever you think of that, it is a strong connection. Of course with no more debates (hey do you think new information has come to light, new issues, new problems since the last debate that we may want to know where the future president stands before we put him up as the standard bearer), the entire media establishment and 15-1 spending against, that it may be a little difficult to win with an electorate that thinks with its feelings, rather than seeking facts – not to mention the organized (DNC Chair) Democratic support for Santorum?

    The Cheerful Warrior has been fighting on principle for over years:

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    Me thinks some people are behaving like the prodigal son’s older brother.

  • It is important for us to have vigorous debate, but let us remember that on the following we can all agree:

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    That’s left-field… I was expecting the usual “what makes you think Boston is a man” response, since I only said “he” about five times in a single sentence, since the name “Boston” doesn’t indicate a sex and there’s no icon or link to a bio. Even had the quote from the Iron Lady about ‘in language, as in life’ ready.

    Interesting how when claims are refuted, they just get dropped for a new target, eh?

  • I mistyped, I meant to write, “what makes you think Boston isn’t a woman?” It is an aside, I wasn’t deflecting. Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

  • Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

    Not really, I never watch videos when folks can’t be bothered to state exactly what they’re trying to show. It requires first having the time to set and watch, then figuring out exactly what they’re targeting, then researching the context, and then laying it all out. No, thanks, not building someone’s argument for them just so I can then do the work of responding to it.

    Speaking of showing, interesting that before the block’o’vids you mention sounding conservative or progressive.
    Talk is cheap, especially with politicians, and it’s rather funny for someone supporting Newt to say he wants to be sure where a politician stands.
    (Or should that be sits, and next to Pelosi?)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate. I am glad most are supporting Santorum over the others; unfortunately, I think he is a bad candidate, but at least he is a good man. I can’t say that about the others (save perhaps Dr. Paul.)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    That is quite a dishonest take-away from my refusing to watch a bunch of out-of-context clips a that you couldn’t even be bothered to do more than link to, figure out what argument you’re trying to make– “he sounds progressive!” isn’t an argument– find out the context, and then refute whatever argument I just read out of your vague claims.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate.

    You go ahead and blindly support a candidate– I prefer to take things in context, with information and good arguments, and support the one that I think is the best of what’s available.

    Have fun playing martyr, though.

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    If you’d read the link, apparently not.

  • AK–great links. Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt. Yesterday he even was caught going on and on accusing a reporter of playing “got ya politics”. In my view it was Santorum trying to play “got ya politics” – knowing full well the cameras were rolling he wanted to prove he is a man and can handle the media with his daughter snickering in the background.

  • Thanks Tess. It is sad but true about Rick. God guy, bad candidate. He probably did not discern the right vocation for his talent. I’m thinking prize fighter or attorney, oh wait.

    I find it so odd, that Catholics, especially at a time of persecution, are so easy to dismiss the guy who has been leading the charge for decades.

    Tweet #250gas #withNewt and get as many people as you can to give something. $2.50 and prayer – there are allegedly 65 million of us. Just dump your anti-marriege Starbucks that costs $4.05 and give to Newt. Come on people.

  • Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt.

    Hogwash. Long before I supported Santorum and had decided which candidate to support, I found Santorum to be a much more persuasive speaker. Newt is good at bluster, and therefore I understand why he appeals to who he appeals to. But in terms of going beyond the surface and explaining first principles, Santorum is far preferable to Gingrich.

    By the way I find it hysterical that Gingrich supporters are calling out Santorum for his treatment of the press when the only reason Gingrich ever rose in the polls in the first place was because he berated the media. When it’s not your guy doing it, suddenly it’s unprofessional. Right.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

  • “How is it that so many persons, even Catholic persons, are now clairvoyant, able to read the heart of of others?”

    By their actions Tess. Anyone who seriously contends that Newt does not have a giant ego simply has not been paying attention to his career.

    As faithful readers of this blog know, I have written several posts praising Gingrich for his attacking the media and highlighting their double standards. I am not blind to either Newt’s considerable strengths or his considerable weaknesses. In regard to the campaign he had his moments and now his time as a serious candidate has ended. He is doing nothing of a positive nature now by staying in on what has become a pointless vanity tour.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

    Ah, that delightful go-to– “nuh-uh, you’re a dummy!”

  • Donald M. Thank you for your polite response. Agreed , each candidate possesses strengths and weaknesses. Your characterization of Newt’s continued candidacy as being merely a vanity tour both saddens and complexes me. Am I to understand that if a person is endowed with intelligence and has the experience and skill set to lead, then that person should pretend he doesn’t ? Aren’t we instructed by Christ Himself to use our God given talents and gifts for the glory of the Father? Pretending one does not possess certain talents, isn’t that false humility?

    Newt realizes he is not able to obtain the required delegates. His intention it appears to me is to keep bringing the debate to Obama, thereby helping the Republican cause whomever the nominee may be. With the current Obama media bias and blackout, Newt is bringing out into the open things the media and Obama would rather be shrouded in confusion and darkness. Also, are you really sure Santorum is ready for prime time considering his recent gaffes?

16 Responses to Holy Mother Russia

  • It’s curious to not how many alleged Catholics who live in America are so hostile to Catholic political thought.

    It points to the political and philosophical dependence of the Catholic Church in the United States, just as much as the Russian Church ever was under the Czars, on the American political system.

    Even the Bishop’s response to NHS mandate is taking place almost exclusively through an American political paradigm.

  • I’ll let your comment stand Tancred, although I must say that it is one of the most tangential jumping off points from one my posts I have witnessed since we began TAC in 2008! 🙂

    Comparing the Russian Orthodox Church to the Catholic Church in America is, I believe, totally wrong-headed. The Orthodox Church was completely, with rare, brave exceptions, subservient to the State and controlled by it. The whole point of the first amendment is to allow all religions, including the Church, to direct their own affairs. This has ever been the goal of the Church in Church-State confrontations since the time of the Apostles. The first amendment as to religion is the dream of many a saint and pope in regard to the freedom of the Church down through the cenuries. As a Pope in the early nineteenth century said, he being no fan in general of new-fangled Republics, nowhere was he more Pope than in the United States of America where the government left the Church alone.

  • Of course the first question is what is Catholic political thought” Perhaps I am wrong but my understanding is there is no “Catholic political thought.” There is Catholic social teaching which is often hijacked to support one political position or another (see And there is political thought by varied Catholics.

    But there is no one, vast “Catholic political thought.” It is in fact a firm teaching of the Church that it does not offer technical solutions to the problems of society. This because politics is the domain of the laity who, informed by the principles of Catholic social teaching, are to apply Catholic social principles to contingent problems. As such there are necessarily a variety of legitimate opinions and options that a Catholic in the political domain may adopt – even one of a nebulously labelled “American political system.” Such is in fact the teaching of the Church.

  • I feel your pain, Tancred.

    I also woke up “on the wrong side of the bed.”

    Offer it up.

    (Why didn’t I name one of my kids Tancred!?)


  • Tancreed

    You typed.

    Even the Bishop’s response to NHS mandate is taking place almost exclusively through an American political paradigm.

    The “American political paradigm”, which may or may be what we would hope for in a country that is 100%, is not anti-Catholic or a violation of Catholic teaching. But the HHS proposals violate both the American political paradigm and Catholic teaching.

    Do you think it is possible that are Bishops have the sense, when addressing an audience that is mostly not Catholic, to use arguments from the common “political paradigm” of the country?

    Is the point to persuade enough people that we change an unjust policy, or just loudly voice disapproval as the noose is being tightened?

  • Phillip: “This is because politics is the domain of the laity who, informed by the principles of Catholic social teaching, are to apply Catholic social principles to contingent problems.” It is the duty of the Catholic Church to offer worship, adoration and acknowledgment to almighty God through the commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. Preaching the Gospel with the Ten Commandments, spiritual and corporal works of mercy and the Beatitudes calls the laity to participate in evangelization. Accusing the Catholic Church of violating the principle of separation of church and state through a ”Catholic political thought” is nonsense. The Catholic Church retains its sovereignty as the Bride of Christ, Who is Sovereign KING. The priest retains his sovereignty and as a citizen has every civil right to speech and peaceable assembly in public as every citizen.

  • Donald: What you say about the Orthodox Church in Russia being subservient to the czarist state is true. On the emblem for Russia is a shield with St. George the Dragon Slayer. Czarina Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II, the last czar, was Queen Victoria’s granddaughter. In Germany, the Kaiser, was Alexandra’s cousin. Seventy-nine people led by Lenin inflicted the Bolshevic Revolt and atheism on Russia. Lenin did this by promising his men FREEDOM OF RELIGION. When his men had succeeded in assassinating the Czar’s family and overthrowing the government, Lenin’s men came to him for FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Lenin laughed them out of his office. I am so reminded of HOPE and CHANGE, the promise made by Obama.
    The emblem for Poland is a single falcon. Legend has it that two brothers came to a cross roads and chose to follow the road taken by the falcon to establish Poland. There are two falcons on the Russian emblem, holding the orb with the cross, symbol of sovereignty and the scepter, the iron rod to rule the nation. (The American eagle is the symbol for the swiftness of God’s JUSTICE. The American eagle holds the olive branch for peace in the world and the arrows and armament for JUSTICE)
    Czar Nicholas II was building himself a seventh palace. His people were starving in the roadway. The starving people, too, were promised HOPE and CHANGE, and FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

  • Tancred: The right to do evil does not exist except through perjury and falsehood. The right to inflict evil on another person does not exist, except through sin. The right to public funds to finance the right to do evil, the right to sin, does not exist, except through Obamacare.

  • “God, save the Tsar!
    To the glorious one,”
    Man, fully alive, is the GLORY of God. Woman, fully alive, is the GLORY of man.
    Alexi, son of Czar Nicholas II, heir to the throne of Orthodox Russia was a hemophiliac.

  • The Cardinal Archbishop of Cracow arrived at the 1903 conclave bearing the Austrian Emperor’s veto of Cardinal Rampolla, who had been Leo XIII’s Secretary of State. Although the secretary to the conclave, Merry del Val, tried to dissuade him, he proceeded to read it out to the understandably enraged Cardinals; there was a surge of support for Rampolla, but it was not enough to secure his election. The new pope, Pius X, ruled that in future anyone attempting to influence the decision of a conclave would incur excommunication.

    Subservience to the state is not just a feature of the Orthodox; it also runs through Protestantism, a legacy of Luther’s reliance on the German princes. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Church of England, where episcopal appointments are ultimately the responsibility of the Prime Minister, and whose schismatic status depends on a number of Acts of Parliament. An Anglican lady of my acquaintance was aggrieved because she could not take communion at Mass, as if it were our fault – I suggested that as a first step she might try petitioning Parliament to get these Acts repealed.

    NB After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia adopted a very lack-lustre anthem. Putin replaced it with the old Soviet anthem, with new words. It is a far better tune. The Star-Spangled Banner is also a fine tune, though difficult to sing on account of its range (and pop divas who massacre it in public ought to be shot). First prize, however, must go to Haydn’s Emperor’s Hymn, now the German national anthem.

  • This is pretty but musically speaking, I still like the Soviet-era anthem better. (The only time average Americans like me used to ever hear it was during Olympic medal awarding ceremonies.)

    Speaking of national anthems, apparently, some boneheads in Kuwait really, REALLY messed up recently when they attempted to play the Kazakhstan national anthem for a winning athlete… they played the parody version from the movie “Borat” instead:

  • Mary,

    Read your Church documents on the role of the laity.

  • Phillip: Yes, Phillip, I will read the church documents on the Catholic Laity. I have been struggling with my role as a lay person in the church, or rather as a lay person who is a woman. It seems to me that if a wife is treated subserviantly by her husband she should look to her mother in law for redress. Jesus gave us all to His Mother before He died so we would have a free choice about going to hell with HIm or staying with HIs Mother…the Mother Whose Son I murdered.

  • Mary, Nicholas II could have had his seventh palace if he had kept Russia out of WW1. Monumental stupidity and greed for the Ottoman Sultan’s lands drove the Russians into a war with Germany that was totally unnecessary. It made them vulnerable to the machinations of a small band of determined terrorists with devastating consequences.

  • Ivan: I have read that the Russian soldiers were sent into the field of battle with one gun for every fifteen men. It was the duty of the soldiers to follow until the man in front did not need his gun anymore.

7 Responses to Obamaville the Political Ad!

Socialism in Art and Life

Friday, March 23, AD 2012

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Winston Churchill

Those of us of a certain vintage may recall Rocky IV where Rocky fought a Soviet Superman, Captain Ivan Drago, portrayed with robotic efficiency and inhumanity by Dolph Lundgren.  I therefore found it interesting to come across the interview below in which Dolph Lundgren relates why his father advised him to come to America:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Socialism in Art and Life

  • Didn’t Jesus believe in socialism?

    Something along the lines of “what you do for the least of mine” or feeding the masses with fish and bread…

  • You can read the Scriptures from now until eternity clinicalresearcher and you will never find a hint that Christ called upon the power of Caesar for anything. Christ’s admonition was much more radical than that. He placed upon each of us a personal responsibility to help others, and this duty cannot be fobbed off upon the state, especially when Caesar does a pretty poor job of it in any case.

Pope to Castro: Drop Communism!

Friday, March 23, AD 2012

7 Responses to Pope to Castro: Drop Communism!

  • I have to think that THAT is what scares dictators like Castro and would-be dictators like Obama the most. Should the good Lord tarry, the Church will still stand even after their day has come and gone. Everyone from Caligula, Commodus, and onward, everyone from Robespierre, Stalin and Hitler are all gone. But the Bride of Christ still stands. Castro and Obama know their fate. And that irritates them no end.

  • “And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.”

    Very nearly came to pass in the person of Sir Keith Parkes. 😉

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION |
  • Quite true Don, but for the efforts of the Defender of London and his brave pilots!

  • Lord Macauley lives! But even more so, the Church!!

  • Pingback: Prayer for the Pope in Cuba | The American Catholic
  • Cuba has a leader for life unless resigns (such as Fidel). Fidel would still be president if it wasn’t for his health.

    People, as President Obama is, at most worse case he will ONLY be president (God forbid) for four more years. That’s it. That’s why his policies must be made in such a way they can be revoked and not in place for decades to come…long after the next president comes along.

Profile in Courage

Friday, March 23, AD 2012

One of the great farces in modern political times is President Obama’s “opposition” to gay marriage.  His opposition is given with a wink and a nudge.  One of the reasons gay marriage supporters haven’t pilloried Obama on this issue is that everyone knows that he is completely insincere in his convictions, or lack thereof.

Here’s further proof of that.

Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election, a Democratic strategist who has discussed these matters directly with Obama’s campaign inner circle tells me.

This does not mean that it will happen, and there are plenty of reasons to assume it won’t. Indeed, it would be political malpractice if Obama’s top advisers didn’t discuss every permutation and possibility, no matter how far fetched. However, the fact that it has been discussed seriously at high levels means it’s not out of the question.

So Team Obama is basically poll testing his position on gay marriage.  Presumably if they see there’s enough support, he can proudly finally come out of the closet.

It’s a good thing his likely opponent is a man who would never dream of running his positions before focus groups in order to come to the right conclusion.


Continue reading...

9 Responses to Profile in Courage

  • Obama is the man who sold his soul to the devil. We got Obama because the devil did not want him. Does anyone think that the devil engages in homosexual behavior? No way, the devil has some self-respect, but the devil encourages all men to lie, to fraud, to cheat and to homosexual misbehavior. That empty shirt in the WH ought to put gay-so called marriage on the ballot if he really wants to know the will of the people. In this strategy, Obama is gauging how much swill the people will eat.

  • When censor with consul’s combined
    The results are but rarely aligned.
    “So let the tribes vote
    on the issues they note,
    ‘Cause their choices I’ve pared and refined!”

  • It is called peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress, that that government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the face of the earth. When Obama and his henchmen “gather to pare and refine” our freedom and civil rights it cannot be called peaceable assembly. Justice is predicated on intent and Obama’s intent is to avoid serving Justice.

  • President Obama, when he was a Senator (state and federal), always voted as far left as he could without incurring political cost.

    Should he win the election the political cost of supporting gay marriage will drop tremendously. That will be the least of his initiatives.

    If he loses, or when he decides he can’t win, the political cost will be zero, He will try to implement as much of his personal program as possible and tie the hands of his successor.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Obama can support or denounce “Gay Marriage” or “Dehydrated Water”. Not much of what he says will really matter in the end. Meanwhile, those who are faithful to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to the Church will continue, in love, to oppose his draconian measures.

  • I don’t like Obama at all, but I do think it’s wrong to say he sold his soul to the devil as Mary de Voe says.

  • Agreed. I actually doubt if he thinks he has a soul to sell, as I’ve always suspected he is a stone cold atheist like his mother. That suspicion was reinforced when Obama claimed, with a straight face, that the Reverend Wright led him to Christ.

  • Yes, the way Mary put it isn’t quite right, but our “nice words” are at odds with the previous 19 centuries of the Church. Think of Sts. Peter and Jude writing of “waterless clouds whose destruction is assured”, of St. John and then Polycarp denouncing those who are “anti-Christ”, and Trent and other Church declarations of ‘anathema’. We are actually the outliers. Obviously Obama and Pelosi (to name just two) are little anti-Christs. The question then is whether this language is prudent at a particular time and place. That is a prudential call and not a moral one.

140 Rallies Around Country Against HHS Mandate

Friday, March 23, AD 2012

22 Responses to 140 Rallies Around Country Against HHS Mandate

  • (Copied over from post below) Houston rally went very well – beautiful day, inspiring speakers. One young female speaker in particular who recognized the despicable tactic of the media and HHS supporters to change the narrative from religious freedom to banning contraceptives. She was not fooled, but unfortunately too many others are.

    Tough to estimate the crowd, several hundred at least. And very well behaved – vocal with cheers for the speakers, but no disruptive conduct at all. Lots of kids present too, mostly babies and elementary school age. An Orthodox priest, several Catholic nuns, Catholic priest and Protestant Minister (…walk into a rally…sounds like the intro of a joke).

    Four or five cops on hand, and essentially just sat in the shade, chatted with each other, and watched – not much for them to do.

  • Thank you for the first hand account c matt. Happy that it went so well!

  • Of course there wasn’t much for the police to do! These are peaceful demonstrations by peace-loving people, not harrassment and intimidation, looting and destruction by Occupy Wall Street fleabaggers!

  • Would go to the ones in my area– there are three that I know of– but 12 is the middle of nap time, and husband’s work isn’t anywhere near any of them to help wrangle two tired kids. Boo. :^(

    Glad it went well elsewhere.

  • Only about 300 people attended, in Tacoma Washington, but the sun was glorious and the five speakers encouraged the faithful to act with love and courage.

  • It’s great these rallies are going on, but isn’t this all going to be settled, for good or for ill, in the courts? As egregious Obama’s overreach is, isn’t this event anticipated for by the Founding Fathers, i.e., a system of checks and balances intended to correct such overreaches?

  • The Founding Fathers would have been astounded by the idea of a President having the power to simply order that employers provide anything. If a President acted in that matter, as a tyrant I believe they would have termed such an abuse of office by the Chief Executive, they would not have looked to the courts for a remedy. They would have looked to the people to preserve their liberty either at the ballot box or, in the final extremity, on the battlefield.

    “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

    James Madison

  • Perhaps so, but I can’t help thinking we’ve had similar overreaches, such as FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court.

  • Odd you should mention that, tso, I’m re-reading “Liberal Fascism” right now and just got to the chapter of past examples of American-style fascism in our history….

  • This was a front page story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer this morning:

  • Right, because people like me don’t deserve medical insurance because we had an appendectomy. And people like my wife don’t deserve medical insurance because they quit drinking.

    If you want fascism, then I believe stupid Catholics don’t deserve medical insurance, because otherwise their children might survive to reproduction age.

  • And people like me don’t deserve medical insurance because we’re healthy, pay our own bills, were responsibly insured for years and simply can’t afford being charged more for one daughter than the entire family use to have to pay.

    Nothing quite like having to pay for pregnancy coverage on your two year old!

  • Incidentally lifewrecker, you’re just a troll. A not-very-skilled, flailing, lying troll.

  • Foxfier:
    “Nothing quite like having to pay for pregnancy coverage on your two year old!” Excellent post. Foxfire, especially if your two year old chooses to become a nun.

  • LW:

    What evidence do you have?

    Compared to what? Hint: in 2008, when gas cost $1.88 a gallon, 85% of Americans had (by their estimations) good health insurance. Under Obama hell care from 3 million to 20 million will not be able to keep their plans.

    How much will Obama hell care cost? Hint: the system will be dead on arrival. The cost estimate keeps rising each month into added trillions that America cannot afford.

    WTF are you talkng about?

    Other issues are the government ordering once-free Americans to buy something they don’t want; ordering the Church to break its beliefs; and seizing the people’s health care.

  • “If you want fascism, then I believe stupid Catholics don’t deserve medical insurance, because otherwise their children might survive to reproduction age.”

    Aptly named Lifewrecker, I will put up with a lot from a troll if the troll is entertaining or can argue well. Since you can do neither apparently, and are simply a boring bigot, I am dispensing with your troll services and banning you from this site.

  • Mr McClarey
    I think you should imbed some music, something grand like the Russin music, when you do the banning-

  • Not a bad idea Anzlyne, or perhaps this clip, 🙂 :

  • Today, I heard that FEMA will not help the tornado victims. How much healthcare does anybody think that they are going to get when Obama thinks you do not deserve healthcare unless you are being aborted, contracepted, sterilized, transgenderized or transhumanized?. You cannot even save your premiums because Obamacare will take them as penalties for not buying Obamacare. Freedom.

  • I had the privilege of being present in the belly of the beast – right outside the offices of DHHS, the office of Katherine Sibelius (a professed Catholic, in reality a traitorous apostate.) We joined 1,300 others including many from TFP and Non-Catholic Christians (one non-catholic cleric came all the way from South Korea, where his church has been praying for America), who respectfully joined us in praying our Lady’s Rosary – perhaps a little clumsy given their lack of familiarity with the mysteries and that they add the doxology to the end of the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster), which is odd since they are so intent on Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, it was a wonderful testimony to God’s power, because Protestants, especially Evangelicals, would not have been caught dead praying with Catholics a generation or two ago. Two thing we can attribute to Obama and radical secularists in general: they have unified our bishops and are uniting Christians. God certainly has a keen sense of humor.

    All people of faith had better learn quickly that once the First Amendment is eroded, then we are one step away from wiping out the American Creed – that God gives rights, not government and that a right to life and free exercise of religion (not limited to worship) are the pillars of freedom. Roe v. Wade made killing babies legal as an option; PPACA makes killing babies not only legal but compulsory.

    We will not comply. Strengthen your faith, it will be tested like it never has been in our lifetime. Christ prevails! We win!

    Pray for SOCTUS, especially those who are Catholic. This week is more pivotal than the third week of January in 1973, almost 40 years ago.

  • Thank you, Mr. McClarey, for tossing that ignorant dupe out on his/her virtual ear. I only wish the weekend had not been so filled at my house, as I would like to have gotten a lick or two in, myself.

    I now imagine he/she will scuttle back to his/her troll village and proudly annouce that he/she has been tossed from another right-wing Religious blog – just another sign of how close-minded and oppressive people like us can be.

The Obama Record: The Debt

Friday, March 23, AD 2012


The second in my ongoing series on the Obama record as President, the first part of which may be read here,  leading up to the election in November.  Few things show more graphically the disaster of the Obama presidency than the debt he has piled on this nation.  This week the Obama Debt reached a grim milestone, as he surpassed the debt run up by his predecessor George W. Bush in eight years.  That right-wing news organization CBS News, gives us the forbidding numbers:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Obama Record: The Debt

  • They can refund the public debt. The debt needs to be paid in cash (from taxes) is the trillions in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. And, add loan guaranties at FNM/FRE and student loans.

  • Obama took all of our money in the first one hundred days. Obama took our private property with Rural Councils. Obama is taking out FREEDOM with Obamacare. Obama’s game plan is the guilt trip. The problem is always the citizenry’s fault. Citizens with unresolved deep seated guilt are being played like a violin or maybe a harp. (Citizens are being used and abused) Let us set aside our personal and communal guilt, take back our money, our property and our freedom.

  • Of all the harm that Obama has done to the American Republic, I believe his acceleration of the process that will end ultimately in some form of national debt repudiation will be the one that future historians will point to as the most significant.

    You could refer to “the harm Obama has done”, but what has been notable about the current incumbent is his concession of the initiative to the Democratic congressional caucus. What you get with B.O. is the resultant of all the various vectors operating withing the Democratic Party, or, put another way, the default Democratic position. The President’s disregard of the work of Erskine Bowles, Alice Rivlin et al one might wager is the most consequential (non)-decision he has made. Then you remember, the U.S. Senate, under the direction of the chairman of its majority caucus, has not passed a budget in three years. The criminal negligence doesn’t go all the way down (state governments balance their budgets), but it the central government is so steeped in it that a minimum condition of addressing any problems is an electoral shellacking for the Democratic Party of a sort that has not been delivered in 60 years or more.

  • I agree with every word you typed Art.

  • As an “average” joe with a non-finance degree all of this is quite frightening.

    I read somewhere that much of this debt is owed to people like myself who own large amounts of government bonds (US citizens).

    does anyone know if this is true?

    And if so, am I screwed or am I going to get a larger return on my investment?

    I am somewhat afraid of the anwers I might get….

  • Once upon a time, President Andrew Jackson actually paid of ALL of the national debt.

  • Chris,

    If you have been paying “payroll taxes” (one of the big lies: this is Federal Insurance Contributions), you “own” a small piece of a huge chunk of the national debt.

    I’m kind’a in the finance business.

    US government debt obligations basically have zero credit, or default, risk. That means you don’t need to be concerned whether the US can pay you back.

    There are many other risks. Interest rate (usually a problems in banks) and market risks: The market value of fixed-rate bonds/debt instruments falls as market interest rates rise and vice versa. Say, you purchased for $1,000 a 30-year T Bond paying 3.5% (We are now in a historically low rate environment). If market rates risk to normal levels, say 6%, for 30-year T’s, and you must sell, you will incur a loss of say 20%. If you hold on you could be earning 6%. Then that would be an opportunity cost/loss.

    A concomitant risk is you would be losing purchasing power with your 3.5% yield.

    The regime’s regulatory and tax policies, including Obamacare, make it more difficult for the evil, unjust private economy to grow (and so tax revenue growth will be retarded) enough to repay the debt. Then, the debt may need to be repaid with the cruelest tax of all: inflation. Again, inflation, market interest rates rise and fixed rate debt instrument prices fall (see above) like rocks.

    Finance 101: diversify.

Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone!

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

Just a typical sample of the craziness that besets the land in the fourth year of Obama:

A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support  President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research  in class against the Republican presidential candidates.

The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County,  were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama  campaign.

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East  Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to  remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.

The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of  each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the  parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to  exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.

Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the  assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four  groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate  as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.

Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an  individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the  information.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone!

  • We have to defeat Obama in this election, for if we don’t, this kind of thing will become the norm and in 10 years or less we’ll have the 4th Reich.

  • Teachers are obligated by their citizenship to teach the founding principles in civic class. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and all freedoms. Minor students do not have informed consent. An education is to teach person how to think not what to think. No. It is not OK. His being honest is like a criminal telling you what crime he is about to prepetrate upon a person and this man already has. He has violated the trust given to him by the parents of the children and if he does not know his boundaries (RESPECT) he ought to be sent to the reeducation camp.

  • Is this satire….a Civics class assigned to dig up dirt to send to Obama. Interesting civics lesson. Beats the demanding task of researching the principles of federalism or something.

    Paul— I hate to tell you but this is the norm which is precisely why we now have an Obama presidency. Obama is the effect; this nonsense is the cause.

  • It is called “picking their brains”.

  • Andrew Coulson from Libertarian think-tank Cato Institute writes often about public school funding and its ineffectiveness in increasing scores. Since 1970, the money spent for each student for grades K-12 has tripled while test scores have effectively been the same. See: for a recent article on it.

  • They teach your children what to think, not how to think. They inculcate their ideology and prejudices in your kids.

    It’s called brainwashing.

    The ’60’s reds graduated from Lenin and pot to poisoning young minds.

  • OMG. That is so Stasi-like. It’s almost as egregious as that butchering of a classic Pink Floyd song. You pained us twice in one post Don.

  • That Pink Floyd song means a lot less than the spin subsequently put on it. The Wall came out it the early 80s in Margeret Thatcher’s Britain. Roger Waters and co were doing a number (in both senses of the term) on the educational system in the UK which required among other things rote learning of poems and the multiplication tables. All children were Miltons and Newtons in the making. There is no need to require any effort on their part to master the basics. No need for discipline of any kind to ensure that the disruptive elements do not make school life a misery for the other kids. The end result of all this is plain to see; with the educational standards in the UK in terminal decline. Later on when it became apparent that the Warsaw Pact was falling apart, the shameless liberals made the album out to be some kind of allegory on the Berlin Wall, but in its origins it was no such thing. The Left has always hated Mrs Thatcher with a passion that that they could never quite work up when it came to the Communists.

  • Of course Comrade Obama would love to have your children snitch on you. Comrade Anita Dunn is a votary of Mao. Comrade Michelle has all the makings of a food Commisar. The only question in my mind is: are they really smart enough to carry it out? There must be some brainier guys behind this.

  • The outright arrogance of Comrade Barry and his minions in thier blatant and egregious attacks on everything this country ever held sacred is indicative of either incredible stupidity or a much darker secret that will be made public in th fall.

    It is my hope that the former is true, so that the only probelm we’ll have in January is forgiving the lemmings that supported the junta in the first place.

  • Whoever scripted the cartoon did an excellent job of exposing the crimes against freedom.

  • Ivan,

    I know all about Roger Waters’ political sensibilities. How can you listen to anything from Animals and on and not? He really went off on Maggie and Reagan on The Final Cut. As warped as he is, he’s still very talented in what he does (well, what he did prior to the late 80’s anyway when his love of self even got in the way of being creative). I still enjoy Pink Floyd music to this day and since I’m approaching 50, I probably safe to say I always will. I can disapprove of a lousy cover version of their songs and am happy to take an opportunity to offer a tongue-in-cheek comment here. Perhaps it’s not for everyone, but I bet at least Paul appreciated it. 🙂

  • RL us right wingers who love British rock just have to live with it. There may not be a single fellow in that music scene with his head on straight. I have a two cent theory as to why it has suffered a precipitous decline since. To wit, that as long they were sincere (they could be totally mistaken – the important thing is that they reflect the truth as they see it), the muses were indulgent, allowing them to make fabulous music. But when they turned out fabrications and crude propaganda, their skills withered and died.

  • Y’all are missing the bigger point. This can only happen when history and geography are ditched in favor of “civics” or “current events”. Teachers can’t so easily indoctrinate when they have a canon of established texts and subject matter to deal with. That is why, in all schools from kindergarten to graduate school, the radical Left has fought against what most people (from old-fashioned liberals to conservatives) think education should be about: for instance, learning about the great works of English literature from Beowulf on, or learning about British and American history, and such.

A Voice for the Voiceless

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

My state’s senior Senator has just achieved a milestone that has put her in the record books.  Barbara Mikulski is now the longest serving female member of Congress in American history, having served her 12,892th day in Congress last week.  There’s this touching piece in the Washington Times discussing how beloved she is among her colleagues.  It features this quote from Olympia Snowe, “R” – Maine:

“She gave voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless”

Three paragraphs later:

The 4-foot-11 former social worker has looked out for her state as a member of the Appropriations Committee and has been a tough advocate for NASA and space programs. She has favored abortion rights and pushed for health care coverage.

Well, perhaps not all voices.

This is also serves as another reminder that Ms. Snowe will not be missed.


Continue reading...

10 Responses to A Voice for the Voiceless

  • She gave death to the most silent, and death to the least powerful. Of course she is another Roman Catholic Democrat politician, a graduate of Mount Saint Agnes College, who has never come under episcopal sanction for being a complete pro-abort throughout her political career.

  • Social justice (for favored classes) is ever the alibi for all sins.

    She represents an off-shoot of the “Fatal Cult of Antihumanism” (Robert Zubrin – title fragment).

  • “ON BECOMING A PERSON” a series taught in Catholic grammar school after Vatican II said that the soul was created and endowed by the community. Personality, not sovereign personhood, is engendered by the community. The rational, immortal soul of the human being in created and endowed when two become one, a new DNA, a newly begotten sovereign person comes in existence. Barbara Mikulski believes that if the community generates the human being’s soul, the community may reposses the immortal, rational human soul. In short, Barbara Mikulski does not believe in the human being’s soverign personhood, immortal, rational soul. It is quite likely, Barabara Mikulski does not believe in God, or believes that God is a state social worker. As an atheist, Mikulski accepts God’s Divine Providence, but refuses to share God’s beneficence with all other people. Mikulski is a politician. Mikulski is not a statesman.

  • If we are to love fools like this, then shouldn’t we do all we can to correct them? Given that information is received according to the mode of the receiver, shouldn’t we employ language that they understand?

    These people only understand sentimental emotions and power. Our Bishops have power, but they seem to not use it (I respect our bishops and do not presume to know what they know, nor anything given as a charism.) As for emotions, well, from what I understand pain elicits all sorts of emotions, can’t we apply the humane methods they use on the voiceless to them? Is it just to stab them in the back of the head with scissors and then vacuum what little brain matter they may have? I mean if our elected idiots, especially Catholics, can vote to legally murder babies; then, can’t we use the same methods to abort Congressmen and Senators? Of course, I am not suggesting that we do it ourselves, that would be barbaric. It must be safe, humane and rare – we can get Kevorkian to do it in a sterile environment, right?

  • Mary-

    Your comments got me curious, so I Googled then Amazoned. I do not disbelieve you, but I would like to find the administrator responsible for any grammar school curriculum that contains this garbage and thrash them soundly. Here’s a review from the amazon.cmo page:

    “I was given this book in 1973 when I was a senior in college and wished to attend graduate school in clinical psychology. The book transformed me. I went from page to page recognizing that Roger’s spoke directly to me and the way I experienced my relationship with my inner self and soul . . .”

    And another . . .

    “Welcome to the world of humanistic/existential psychology. This is the book I buy as gifts for close friends, as it has forever changed me. I too am amazed that as a clincal psychology doctoral student, this book is not a Required read in our program. If you’ve been considering reading about humanistic psychology or Carl Rogers, this is the book to start with . . .”

    “Humanistic psychology.” Can there be a more selfish, self-centered or self-destructive delusion? “If I look at myself in the mirror long enough I will become God.”

    If despair were not a mortal sin, I would probably be wallowing a bit right now. Unbelievable.

  • My children were exposed to the series “ON BECOMING A PERSON’ in Catholic school (5th-8th grade). I did not know there were adult books as well. Our pastor told them to use the Baltimore Catechism. They refused. Pastor sent them packing but not before they (Oh these indivduals were nuns) they created a schism in our parish. Some parishioners left to teach this in private settings at home schooling. Looking back, I remember how vapid the lessons were.There was no substance. If the Holy Spirit, working through the community, creates the human being’s soul, then the Holy Spirit is the Creator, not the Sanctifier. The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are distinct. Jesus Christ was full of grace and wisdom, therefore, Christ grew into the fullness of grace and wisdom that were His by dominion. The idea that Christ did not know that He was God, or what His mission was is an effort to strip Our Lord of His Divinity. (my own thoughts) Jesus, like Our Lady, could not have given informed consent if Jesus and His Mother did not know. The nuns ought to have given obedience to our pastor. They were forced to by our Bishop and they left.

  • It was the American Psychiatric Association that “normalized” homosexual behavior. It is psychiatrists in Baltimore, Md last August (B4UACT) who are trying to get the court’s permission to have adult-infant intercourse “normalized”. Legalized rape without informed consent of minor children. “The Professionals” Your response enlightened me as to where this evil is venting.

  • They begot three generations of godless predators.

  • “If I look at myself in the mirror long enough I will become God.” How long will it take for you to become infinite? Infinite has no beginning. I think this is what Satan offered Adam and Eve in the Garden: to become infinite, like God. God, our Creator, then ceases to exist. …and humankind, mankind, ceases to be human.

  • Thank you WK Aiken for you valuable post. I learned much. God Bless. Say one Hail Mary