Sandra Fluke and Walmart

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

 

Sandra Fluke professes not to have known that birth control pills  for $9.00 for  a month’s supply are available within easy walking distance of Georgetown.  I believe her.  I doubt if Sandra Fluke would ever do anything as declasse as shop at a Walmart.  That is for the hoi polloi.  Sandra’s life as a struggling law student includes trips to Europe, presumably paid for by her mega-rich boy friend.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Sandra Fluke and Walmart

  • Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions. Way to totally miss the point of this conversation. At least you could have called her a slut! Jesus Christ!

  • “Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions.”

    How perceptive you are Bryan. My intention was to show that she is a completely out of touch limousine Leftist. Thanks for picking up on that.

    “Way to totally miss the point of this conversation.”

    That Sandra Fluke is a spoiled brat Leftist who wishes to trample on religious liberties is, I think, the point of the conversation.

    “At least you could have called her a slut!”

    Nah, she isn’t that harmless, or honest.

    “Jesus Christ!”

    Ah, casual blasphemy, always the way to end a well-argued contribution to com box debate.

  • Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.

  • Please Michael, give it up. Sandra Fluke was simply lying for political effect. She has given zero details as to how she came up with the $3,000.00 figure and she clearly had no intention of discussing how cheap contraception is for the average woman, or that contraception is available for free to poor women under Title X.

    Ace of Spades asked her how she arrived at the figure she cited. The response, a refusal to comment:

    “By asserting, with no citation to any source, that she’s “informed” that some people with a conveniently-unnamed “genetic” disease can’t take those particular pills (which ones? there are a lot of different types available at that price) but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Look, as a blogger, sometimes I, well, I don’t make things up, but I pass things along without verification.

    If I started telling Jake Tapper or anyone in the media things I’d been “informed of” by unnamed people in my comments, would they take it seriously?

    No. They’d ignore it. People tell stories. People’s stories tend to be those that push their agenda. Absent verification, they’re just stories.

    Has Jake Tapper or anyone else in the media checked Fluke’s main claim — that many insurance policies won’t cover hormonal therapy when prescribed for medical reasons?

    Because that’s her big claim — that while birth control per se might be cheap, some women have rare “genetic” diseases requiring birth control hormones for medical purposes, but insurers won’t cover these costs. (These are the only conceivable truly high costs of “birth control.”)

    And yet, has she named a single policy or provider which maintains this bizarre scheme?

    No.

    And I asked her on Twitter
    She refused comment.”

  • “Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.”

    This. Exactly. Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with. It can have serious side effects if you take it without seeing a doctor. Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.

  • “Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.”

    No comment.

    “Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.”

    And for the vast majority of women contraception is dirt cheap or free. Next red herring.

  • No comment.

    LOL – really!

    Even if they are more expensive for some, it’s still not likely to cost $3000. Regardless, that’s missing the point. It is unjust to force other people to pay for your expensive recreational activities – especially if they view those activities as immoral.

  • Birth control pills DO have serious side effects…breast cancer for one. The best method yet to prevent unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.

  • Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.

    Dr. Pepper on monitor… almost. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    But then again, side effects are real. They include such wonderful things as weight gain, moodiness, and loss of libido. Really, sounds like the ideal spouse… not.

    On the unattractive side, they can contribute to cardiac issues and increased risk of cancer.

  • Birth control is also known to cause abortion. OK, maybe “lead to” more than “cause”, but the ends are the same.

    And I didn’t know that you needed a prescription for condoms.

  • Birth control pills have poisoned our ground water with estrogen. Obama wants us to pay to pollute our ground water, then pay to clean it up.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • At the houston anti hhs rally. About 400 people so far.

  • Let us know how the rally went c matt. We need to have such rallies up and down the nation.

  • but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Taking her at her word, that’s $125 a month.

    A latte (tall) costs about $3.50 each. One latte a day would just about cover it. That is not even factoring in her use of a health savings account which would lower the after tax cost even more. Maybe if the HHS mandated coverage for one latte a day, that would free up her coin for the pills?

  • 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.

  • One thing I never quite understood. The same people who go out of their way to eat only organic fruit, vegetables and meats (when they do eat meat) and decry the use of hormones in food products, have no problem directly ingesting a synthetic hormone on a daily basis. Go figure.

  • c matt, that observation fits Seattle to a T.

  • Suzanne Sommers books reveal her investigation into the ways big pharma has fooled women into thinking that they have the answers when the reality is that it is all about making money and they don’t care how they tamper with nature or the consequences. Men and women from both sides of this issue should look at what she has written and investigate for yourselves. The bottom line for me is that if you are following church teaching you don’t have to worry, if you are not and thinking you are going to get away with it, think again. It can have lifelong effects and affects everyone around you, from our having to deal with family illness to the water it pollutes and environmental harm from the hormones in the water.

  • I get that Ms. Fluke’s friend could have bought birth control pills cheaply at Wal-Mart. However, she needed to take them for an ovarian problem (which, because she did not have birth control pills, she died from, I believe). My thought is that she perhaps needed a certain type of BC pill, a type that might have been very expensive. So we have a situation in which the Catholic Church doesn’t want to pay for medication that could save lives…In any case, it all goes back to intent. If BC pills can be an abortificient (sp?), a question that is highly suspect, well, so can booze, and that is beyond question, but Catholic church’s happily give out booze at parties and so forth.

  • God knows Walter where you got the lie that Fluke testified that her friend died. Here is a link to Fluke’s meretricious testimony and she never said that:

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/

    Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the rare cases, already covered, where birth control pills are used to treat a medical condition and not for contraceptive purposes. It has everything to do with running rough shod over religious liberty in order for Obama to score points with pro-abort feminists and to conjure up an imaginary “Republican war on women”, so he can overcome his miserable record and get another four year lease on the White House.

  • Mac,

    The evil, hateful sacs of excrement at MSNBC, moron.org, et al twist the facts to make massive traps for imbecile liberals.

For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey!

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  I have been waiting for this movie for over a year and now it is finally being released on June 1, 2012.  For Greater Glory (formerly entitled Cristiada).  The must see movie for 2012 for all American Catholics and all of our fellow Americans who cherish religious liberty.  At a time when the Obama administration is firing the opening shots in a struggle against the religious freedom of Catholics, and exploiting a de facto schism within the Church in America to accomplish their ends, a film is being released this election year detailing the struggle of Mexican Catholics in the last century against a bitterly anti-Catholic regime.  Most of the time in life coincidences are merely coincidences, but sometimes I suspect they are sent by God for His purposes.  In any case it appears to be a worthy movie to retell the heroic story of Mexican Catholics and their fight for the Church and freedom.

The story of the Cristeros is the tale of the attempt by the Mexican government to crush the Catholic Church.  Mexico had a long history of anti-clerical political movements prior to the revolution of 1910.  However, the Mexican Revolution brought to the fore radical elements that pushed through the Constitution of 1917 with its anti-clerical articles 3, 5, 27 and 130.  In his encyclical Iniquis Afflictisque, the first of three encyclicals he wrote condemning the persecution of the Church in Mexico, Pius XI described the war against the Church waged by the Mexican government:

Continue reading...

21 Responses to For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey!

  • That’s good news, I’ve been anticipating this for some time. This past year I began studying this history. Amazing how ignorant we are of what happened right next door, not too long ago and appears to be happening here – with less macho attitude, more insidious.

    I assume the name change has to do with having a wider appeal. I hope it educates people.

    Viva Christo Rey!

    Arriba!

  • The name change probably is for that reason AK. Likewise the more recent trailer emphasizes the fight for freedom rather than the war on the Church as the older trailer, at the bottom of the post, does. None of that matters to me as long as the story is told. I suspect that the producers of the film have begun to realize that they could have an unexpected hit on their hands, and I am glad it is getting a summer release. I am going to do my best to spread the news about this film.

  • Thank you, Donald. I knew nothing about the persecution of the Church in Mexico during the 20th century. None of this is taught in public school. As the American Knight correctly pointed out, how amazingly ignorant we are of the history of a country right next to us. Thus apparently are we doomed to repeat its mistakes. Pray to God this isn’t the case!

  • I think the producers are cunning like serpents and innocent as doves. Sell an action movie about freedom and the audience gets the truth about religious persecution. Brilliant! Plus it has the politically-correct appeal of being ‘ethnic’.

    Paul, what is worse is that our government was complicit in the whole thing. We both turned a blind eye and supported the massacre. the WASP establishment has been maintaining its dominance in our land at any cost (most recent example – Myth RINO-Money – I know he’s a Mormon, but he is the Northeast WASP choice over against the Catholic choice – no not that one – I am referring to Newt.)

    The one voice that petitioned our government to stop the persecution and not assist it, was Holy Mother Church – especially the Knights of Columbus. As the membership ages and grows larger in the middle with good food and beer, perhaps it is time for the KofC to begin battle preparations, we may actually need Knights soon.

  • “Paul, what is worse is that our government was complicit in the whole thing. We both turned a blind eye and supported the massacre.”

    Complete and total rubbish AK. The American government, through its ambassador to Mexico Dwight Morrow, worked with the Vatican to bring about peace and the ending of the worst of the persecution of Catholics in Mexico:

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

  • How appropriate on the eve of Pope Benedict’s visit to Mexico.

    And very symbolic, he is visiting Guanajuato (my mother’s home town as well as JEB Bush’s wife’s hometown), where the Mexican rebellion against the Spanish Empire began.

    Another symbol in the visit is that when JP2 visited Mexico for the first time, provisions were put forth by the Vatican that those anti-Catholic laws in the Mexican Constitution be removed.

    God is great!

    ?Viva Cristo Rey!

  • Donald, you write : “Most of the time in life coincidences are merely coincidences, but sometimes I suspect they are sent by God for His purposes.”

    Be assured, Donald “Coincidence” is the Second Name of the Holy Spirit. This Film has come out at the right time – God’s Right Time for your beloved country, U.S. of America and for the World. + Lautedur Iesus Christus +

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • My first inkling of Communism in Mexico came when I saw the movie “the Assassination of Trotsky” — 30 years later I read Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory” — Please God my personal “organic growth” and development of understanding during those 30 interim years will continue apace!

  • This is a must-see movie. The last (I imagined it would be) time I went to see a movie in a theater was 2003.

    Sorry that I don’t have the attribution for the following quote.

    “The Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn bore witness to this truth in his 1983 Templeton address: It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that “revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.” That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.”

    This is the motive behind Obama’s all-out, dirty war against Holy Mother Church.

  • My sophomores are in the midst of studying the 20th century persecution of the Church in Mexico right now, with the emphasis on Miguel Pro. I’ve encouraged them to see the film when it finally hits theaters.

  • I studied during the 70s and 80s in a Catholic school in Mexico. Eventhough we had religion classes it did not appear in the report card because it was not legal to teach it. In the report card there was a row with grades but no subject. Most mexicans know nothing about the Cristeros war since it is not in the history books. However, there is still a strong anticatholic rhetoric in the history books, most government official, and public universities.

  • God bless Andy Garcia for his wonderful, TRUTHFUL films! Every one I’ve seen is marvelous! I can’t wait to see “Vivo Christo Rey” !

  • this movie means alot to my family .. my great grandpa fought in this war.. my 95 year old grandma still talks about her dad fighting for cristo ray.. she told us that my great grandpa was a vary importent man in this war. vary proud. lots more of this story but i would telll it to any one that wants to listen

  • Your great grandfather’s story sounds fascinating Eric. Tell us more if you wish. I might include it in a future post.

  • T Shaw: Thank you for the quote which accurately describes what is happening here in America.

  • Another great film dealing with this time period in Mexico was John Ford’s 1940’s, “The Fugitive” with Henry Fonda. The story of a hunted priest who finally escapes but comes back to his death. Saw it as a boy and have never forgotten it.

  • I have tried to put out a lot of informative posts regarding this topic.

    Jean Meyer, the premier historian of the Cristero Wars, is behind this film.

    Mr. Meyer, a French-naturalized Mexican, began his research in the 70’s and was antagonistic to the Cristeros. As he interviewed hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, the Cristeros won his respect.

    http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/search?q=cristiada

  • I passed this to all my family and friends. My father, in turn, passed it to his friends. He mentioned he was ashamed because he knew nothing of this period, of how the Church dealt with persecutions just south of our borders. He urged everyone to prepare, to gather together and pray, and fast, and rally in support of religious liberty now while we still can. “Viva Cristo Rey! “should be proclaimed by all of us, loud and clear, and inserted into every protest sign, email, letter, phone, contact we make with our elected officials…

    Thanks, Mr. McClarey, for helping us understand the enormous task before us…

    Jesus – help us!

The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

 

,

 

Dale Price over at Dyspeptic Mutterings is being brilliant again:

 

Fr. Thomas Massaro would like you all to calm down.
I’m not going to fisk this, because it’s an admirable sentiment, as far as it goes. Which means it stagged a step or two before dropping in a messy heap.
Yes, it would be nice if things in the world were more civil and respectful. That’s fine.
But the problem with his call for civility is that he sees the white-hot anger as the problem rather than the symptom. It’s not–the real problem goes far, far deeper than that, and has been savaging the Body of Christ for decades now.
The HHS mandate is just the catalyst causing it to explode to the surface.
The real problem is that the Church in America has fractured into at least two churches. If it hadn’t been this issue, it would have been a dispute over the language of the liturgy, or the latest pronouncement from the Vatican, some university conferring honors on someone who is an open enemy of Catholic teaching or even the renovation of the local cathedral church. The struggle–more bluntly, low-grade civil war–between the churches has been going on since the last bit of incense dispersed at Vatican II. We don’t agree on how to worship, what our schools should teach, what laws should be enacted/opposed, what canons apply and when or even what our parish church should look like. In fact, we can’t even agree on whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.
And for forty five years, our shepherds have been trying to keep it together by careful tacking, including soothing rhetoric, trying to give everyone half a loaf or so (depending on the year, bishop and constituency) and generally trying not to see the coal pile in the ballroom.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War

  • “…generally trying not to see the coal pile in the ballroom.”

    It’s not a coal pile. It’s a pile of Uranium-235 at 90+ percent enrichment about to go prompt critical. That’s when delta-K goes greater than beta bar. You don’t need to know what that is technically, because we’re all about to see it happen.

    The neutrons are about to fly!

  • I did not know that rancid tidbit about Fr. Massaro. I will make sure to update.

    Thanks for the hat-tip.

  • Yes. The Church has been split asunder. Only the educated and wealthy remain for Mass. That is a disservice to everyone and God will punish both the right wing and the left.

  • Pingback: The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War | The American Catholic | Church
  • That is not true Dan as I can attest at my parish, where the rich, the poor and the middle class sit in the pews, and where the members of the parish have all sorts of educational backgrounds. The divisions within the Church today are ones of faith, and the lack thereof.

  • “Opinion is not truth. ” Plato

    Some believe social justice is the alibi for all sins.

    Recently, this was about the second time I can remember in the past 45 years, one of our holy, young priests preached on sin. There was noticeable squirming in the pews.

  • Recently one of our priests (3rd year) gave his first talk on contraception. He apologized for not doing it before. He said that he, his fellow priests and bishops have failed us. He said it is a difficult topic; I suspect because it is so polarizing and ‘Catholics’ complain about hearing it. And then he laid into the whole thing and when he finished his excellent homily – men and angels clapped with resounding applause and I saw a line of people thanking him after Mass.

    Our priests need encouragement and prayer – some more than others. Some may also need a slap in the face – given as fraternal correction in a spirit of Charity – remember, we are required to do spiritual works of mercy as well, including counsel the ignorant – especially ignorant clerics.

  • First off, the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception. It is not a sin, it is not evil, and it does not become either of these things simply because you say so.

    Second, the CC is accustomed to taking positions on moral issues from a standpoint of Natural Law. You can’t do it this time- haven’t you noticed? Natural Law- a system of law determined by nature, thus universal. It refers to the use of reason to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. By way of contrast, see Positive Law, or man-made law. Right now (and for the past 50 years or so), the CC has faced a situation in which Natural Law determines that contraception (at least in most of its forms) is perfectly moral, and that conclusion is the basis and standard for judging or critiquing the Positive Law of the CC.

    Third, we must examine the relationship between the first two points and tie them together. Once more, the CC is wrong about contraception, and we the American people are using Natural Law to judge the CC and its Positive Law. You’re not used to this, nor are you used to being judged from within by other Catholics. Even more significant than the contraception issue in and of itself is the specific groups of people that it affects. No, not insurance agencies, but Catholic institutions of higher education and Catholic hospitals, both of which employ and serve non-Catholics just as much as Catholics and neither of which are cloistered from the non-Catholic realities of the country in which we live. More to the point, however, you’re looking at two groups of people that are uniquely gifted in the expertise that is required to assess Natural Law on this issue- medical expertise, along with logic, reason, philosophy, ethics, law and government, you name it and some aspect of academia covers it. These are the people who assess Natural Law and render judgment on the Positive Law of the Catholic Church. The people with relevant expertise are in charge of it- not the US College of Catholic Bishops. They don’t have the relevant expertise.

    You might not like it, but really, what are you going to do about it? Judgment is being rendered by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Natural Law is what it is- and really, this battle was fought and won decades ago. This is an election-year kerfuffle, and it will go away just as soon as Obama wins re-election with the help of the Catholic vote- just like last time. Then things will go back to the way they’ve been- in the foreground, most of us will go on with our lives with the knowledge that contraception is moral, permissible, and generally a good thing. We might even make a snarky remark about the Catholic Church here and there, and you’ll fume but do nothing. Meanwhile, the currently-vocal minority of Catholics will fade to the background and wonder why people stopped caring about you. I can give you a preview, though- they stopped caring because it stopped being an election year. And I’ll just tell you in advance- despite the GOP’s best efforts to get the Catholic vote in 2012, it won’t work. The Catholic vote will go to Obama again. The GOP might find some other reason to go back to the well in an election year to be named later, but the Catholic response on the current attempt will disappoint them just a bit.

    These predictions will prove to be accurate, and I’m sure you won’t be pleased when it happens. If for not other reason than it will make a couple of people look foolish for the ignorance they’re about to attribute to me.

  • Mike,

    It’s so cute how you use big words to make an argument about which you know nothing. Natural Law is easily discernible by reason alone; however, if you lack that capacity, then it just becomes a cool term to use to obfuscate your confusion.

    When your reason begins and ends below the belt, it is difficult actually think; but, at least, you’re educated enough to know how to write the big words. Perhaps you may actually want to find out what they mean.

    Oh, and although our bishops all went to college, they are not a college, rather, they’re a conference. You may have confused them with the College of Cardinals, to which some of our bishops do belong, most recently Timothy Cardinal Dolan. Yet, I suspect the difference is lost for you because all you see is ‘evil clerics’. Those bastards, all they do is try to keep us out of hell and get us to heaven – how dare they!!!

  • Mike: If someone does not love you enough to want to have more of you, or if you do not love another to want more of them, it is a lie and lust, not love. Why should any citizen be forced to pay for somebody’s lust, be that they are going to hell?

  • Mike,

    So many words, and yet so much FAIL. You may want to brush up on the Natural Law. However, if that doesn’t do it for you, you might want to check out the phenomenologist approach. The truth is out there, and frankly you have missed it.

  • Mike, alas, has failed to enlighten us on the Natural Law (it’s not the product of the contemporary consensus of the Degreed in anything save his mind).

    However, he has amply demonstrated to us the deleterious effects of the emphasis on self-esteem in public education. And he feels good after his verbose exercise in condescension.

    So everyone’s a winner here–hurray!

  • I like the way in which AK, Mary DeVoe, Big Tex and Dale Price have kept this very simple for Mike. Indeed, that’s the whole issue: liberals can’t understand simple.

  • Paul,

    Thank you for including me in your comment. Pithiness is not my forte. Hoorah for spiritual acts of mercy – specifically counseling the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. Mike, you’re welcome and we love you.

  • First off, the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception. It is not a sin, it is not evil, and it does not become either of these things simply because you say so.

    Let me put Mike’s analysis in the form of a syllogism:

    I want to have contraceptive sex;
    The Church says it’s immoral;
    Ergo the Church is wrong.

    Natural Law shows that the natural end of the procreative act is… wait for it…wait for it… procreation.

    If you cannot grasp that fundamental point, then please leave Natural Law to the grownups.

  • Mike, you are making a fundamental error by confusing Catholics (individual practitioners of the Catholic faith to varying degrees of fidelity) with the Catholic Faith.

    It very may well be that the “Catholic” vote may go for Obama, if by that you mean more individual practitioners will vote for the O rather than other candidates. But that does not the Catholic Faith make. All it means is that there are probably a lot of misinformed, malformed, or outright rebelious Catholics. While that is a grave concern that needs to be addressed, it does not mean that the O or any of his positions are in conformity with the Catholic Faith. Morality is not determined by majority vote.

  • As part of my professional milieu I find that the biggest lies are told in the most civil tones, in the most civil forums, by the most civil people…..and “civility” is then demanded when caught. Otherwise, it is the use of the mask of civility to commit the most uncivil wrongs that I find most reprehensible.

  • Mike,

    Do you know the first Commandment God gave? Hint: It’s why God embedded strong sexual attractions between men and women (oops, opened another can of worms!)

    If you think consistent 2,000 years-long teachings of Holy Mother Church are erroneous, congratulations, you have self-identified as a heretic. Look it up.

    re: voting for Obama.

    How does $8 a gallon gasoline sound?

    The Obamateur Hour (or How I Keep Hearing How Stupid is Sarah Palin): “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. We want to encourage production of oil and gas, and make sure that wherever we’ve got American resources, we are tapping into them. But they don’t need an additional incentive when gas is $3.75 a gallon, when oil is $1.20 a barrel, $1.25 a barrel. They don’t need additional incentives. They are doing fine.” Oil was $107 a barrel at close yesterday.

    How much of that $3.75 a gallon is taxes?

  • Mike, you know what else is a sin in Catholic Church teaching? (I don’t think I should tell you if you’re this upset about the teaching of artificial birth control.) Oh, you are not going to like this one. It is a sin against the 5th Commandment to harbor “religious and racial prejudice.” It “is a sin against justice as well as charity.” But here is the part where it really starts getting good: “THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF JOINING AN ORGANIZATION WHICH PROMOTES SEGREGATION OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” (my emphasis). There is more, read on.

    This is a teaching in the book, “Life In Christ – Instructions in the Catholic Faith” published in 1958 with authority of a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. I just confirmed this past week with a high ranking clergy official in the Catholic Church that that is still the teaching of the Church. Do you know what the following teaching means: “This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization which promotes segregation OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS?” Are you sitting down?

    It means “joining” the Democrat Party is a sin against the 5th Commandment. The Democrat Party denies the right to life, both in word and action, to unborn children by their support and defense of keeping abortion legal in their organization platform and their votes in Congress and state legislatures. Catholics who are registered to vote in the Democrat Party are committing sin against the 5th Commandment (interesting that it happens to be THAT commandment) and remain in sin as long as they are registered in that party, besides voting for that party. I’m waiting on word of how serious a sin it is. But I think Catholic Democrat culpability is high in the continued murder of unborn children because the power the Democrat Party comes from their large numbers of registered voters, of which, Catholics are their single, largest voting block, and consequently a large number of Democrat candidates are able to be elected who defend and implement pro-abortion regulations. Abortion could not remain legal if large numbers of Catholic Democrats discover that their salvation depends on whether they choose to be Catholics or Democrats. I would think that they would choice to save themselves rather than the Democrat Party which would lose elective power with the loss of a large portion of that voting block. Consequently, the party would have a lot fewer elected representatives to defend and support their pro-abortion positions, especially in the Senate which would enable prolife nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court to be confirmed.

  • I guess that is why the closest approximation to the outer circle of hell in our country (barring the Washington Beltway) is being in the Demoncratic Party.

  • Mike, after the election year when you go back to your life, happy about your predictions, and are being a little snarky about the Catholic Church for amusement because it is your Constitutional right to speak your mind; I suggest you think about the Four Last Things which Catholics hold to be true, and, also to wonder whether, if these are true, it’ll be Heaven or Hell for you and your compatriots.

  • Wow, looks like I got a live one here.

    For the record, I am actually a moderate who tends to vote conservative. The fact that American Catholics will vote for an eventual winner rather than voting on some sort of principle is a long-standing failure that I’m pointing out, while predicting more of the same in the immediate future.

    @Stillbelieve- I encourage you to run the “Catholic + Democrat = Sin” findings past some Catholic apologists at EWTN. Your best bet is Catholic Answers Live on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 6 eastern 5 central and so forth- oh, and look at this, you can also call on Monday next week. Akin and Blackburn have an extra appearance. Try to get it down to a pretty short question, though, and know ahead of time exactly how you want to word your question. The screener does write it down word for word and posts a recap of the questions for that segment on their calendar.
    If that doesn’t work, visit Catholic Answers Forums and look up PJM and anyone else that he recommends. He’ll put as much time and effort into this as you have, and he has some excellent resources as his disposal as well. See what you come up with. Also, ask him how he knew John Hardon.

    I’ve never self-identified as a Democrat, and if the CC does deem Democrat affiliation to be a sin, add it to the list of Catholic no-nos that few understand and even fewer care about. I don’t think it does, though, and you’ll find this out if you do more research and ask the right questions of the right people. As to why a non-Democrat would favor the contraception aspect of the HHS mandate- that’s what being a moderate is all about. I get to do that.

    @American Knight- you’re right in pointing out that it is rather necessary to make a distinction between Natural Law in contemporary Catholicism and Natural Law in contemporary jurisprudence. (That is what you were doing, yes?) And you’re right, I said “college” where I should have said “conference.” It’s probably best that I ignore the rest of what you wrote.

    @Mary de Voe- if I ever get married and then have sex (in that order), I won’t ever engage in sexual intercourse with the understanding that I don’t want my wife to be the mother of my babies. There is a distinction here, however- there might be some times when we decide, together, that making a baby during this particular month is not what’s best for our family right NOW. But of course we still have sex, because that is very good for a marriage- particularly during the time of the month when this hypothetical wife would be at her most aroused. Rawr.
    As far as when we might not want to have a baby- perhaps in the first year or two of being married, although this depends on a variety of circumstances financial and otherwise. Assuming we’re fertile (which doesn’t always happen, you know), we’ll basically come to an agreement on how long we need before having another one, and I’m sure we’ll have some idea of the total number of kids we’d like to have going in. Then there’s the issue of long-term financial planning and assessing the number of children we can reasonably support, and of course there’s the approximate age range of 35-45 during which women can have babies but steadily climb to an unreasonable level of risk for complications, miscarriages, birth defects and so forth. If we have a child with special needs we will obviously meet all those needs (which I happen to be uniquely well-suited to do, I might add).
    The reason I felt the need to add that is this: I’ve had this same conversation before, and I’ve had it with people like you. You’ve already told me that any use of any form of contraception for any reason is tantamount to a blanket statement like “I don’t love you enough to have more of you.” So I already know where this is going- as soon as I mention that an unreasonably high risk for a high-risk pregnancy is a legitimate reason to use contraception regularly over a long period of time, I know you’re going to accuse me of hating special needs kids and wanting to kill them. I haven’t given you a response yet and I already know you want to go there. How do I know? Because it’s evident that you’re an unreasonable person who enjoys frustrating people.

    @c matt- your summary of my analysis is a joke. I laughed. You do raise a good point, though, and it does get us down to the basics of this thing. You actually left out a couple of points pertaining to Catholic teaching on the natural end of the procreative act. It was initially presented in the following manner- a twofold purpose, as a remedy for concupiscience and for procreation. More recently, however, the unitive aspect has been introduced to the ever-Newness of Catholic tradition as it develops. It is good that the CC recognizes that sex is a unitive act, in a relational sense as well as psychological, emotional, and so forth. I can only hope that you one day begin to see that sometimes, depending on the exact situation, one of those things can get in the way of the other- and that certainly doesn’t mean a married couple is obligated to abnegate themselves of them both. For example, following the birth of a child, there’s usually about a year (or at least a few months) between the birth and physical recovery on the part of the mother to the point where the unitive act can come back into play. That doesn’t mean you stop having children, of course- sometimes, one thing gets in the way of the other, and it’s not a bad thing. Likewise, there are times in a marriage when it’s not reasonable or feasible for the couple to have another child. That doesn’t mean you need to abstain from sex, though. It’s still just as much of a unitive act when you’re using contraception.
    @thesecondpostofcmatt- I actually wasn’t confused about that. I’m just pointing out how Evangelical voters in America can be mobilized on principle to vote for someone eventually loses the general election in a presidential race, whereas the voting habits of Catholics- at least on the national stage- are consistently and notoriously anything but “set apart.” I bring this up as a chastisement to Catholics who feel the need to preach at Evangelicals, especially when it’s done without any realistic hope of meaningful engagement- perhaps you should begin with converting Catholics to Catholicism.

    @T Shaw- so I’m a heretic? I suppose you must think the OCA and the Russian Orthodox are heretics as well. I have news for you. The Catholic Church is in schism, and you only speak for the Western portion of the Church. After all, the Church- by your own definition of Church with a capital C- does include the Eastern Orthodox who maintain apostolic succession. Does. It. Not. (With qualifications, of course, in that it’s the “other lung” of the Church and it’s an imperfect unity that you hope to see in its fullness one day, but let’s stay on point, you do see them as being part of the Church. With imperfect unity, I know that. But a part of the Church. With imperfect unity, I get it. Part of the Church. There’s that part, too).
    But do you make an exception for the Eastern bishops who maintain that an Eastern Orthodox Christian, with the guidance of his bishop in the economy of salvation, may at certain times be cleared to use contraception for certain kinds of reasons provided that it’s not done for purely selfish reasons? Are those heretical bishops who lead flocks that you now call “ecclesial assemblies” because they have willfully separated themselves from the Church in the exact sort of manner that would distinguish a schismatic thing from a heretical thing?
    In other words, are you engaging in ad-hoccery with your “heretic” claim, or will you indicate an acceptable level of consistency with your assessments?
    Moving on. $8 for a gallon of gas sounds expensive. Obama has no direct control over gas prices, though, and the degree to which any president of the US can have indirect control over the price of gas is either comically exaggerated or realistically suppressed in your mind depending on who’s in office. Obama happens to know that the price of gas will continue to rise, but he’s not making it do that. What he is doing is passing energy initiatives that force American car companies to make cars more fuel-efficient. That sounds nice. I hope he’s right about how Detroit automakers will progress over the next 12+ years. They say they’re on track for cars that go nearly 55 to the gallon on average, doubling current mileage standards. If that’s accurate- and that is a big if- 8 per gallon is doable.

    @PM- who are you referencing when you say “your compatriots”? If it was my decision, I would start by saying my compatriots are “other Christians.” But if I wanted to be more specific, I would go on to say “Christians, not just in name only, for whom matters of faith and morals are of primary importance, who are primarily concerned with becoming better Christians.” I hope that includes you, in spite of the disagreements that we do have. I regret to inform you, however, that most of your compatriots- that is to say, Catholics who live in America- are not my compatriots. “Not just in name only” eliminates a majority of them all by itself.

  • Mike: You said the Church was wrong on contraception.

    Good for you!

    Tertullian defined a heretic as one who replaces Church teachings on Faith and morals with his opinions.

    I happen to agree with the Church: coincidence or the Holy Spirit?. If I did not, I would not say I’m a Catholic. There are few worldly benefits for trying to be a Catholic, sonny.

  • What exactly is wrong with the teaching of Humanae Vitae?

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

    As section 17 points out, contraception leads to women being treated as mere sex objects, and enables government to say who should reproduce and who shouldn’t. Furthermore, the conjugal act in marriage is supposed to be both unitive and procreative. Saying, “I have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur” is no different than Eve partaking of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We don’t have the rightfully authority to tell God when He may or may not create new life. Contraception assumes we do. That is the height of hubris and arrogance.

    BTW, calling Mary DeVoe an unreasonable person who enjoys frustrating people is unkind, intolerant and divisive. But please feel free to call me that.

  • @T Shaw- funny thing about Tertullian. He is responsible for the earliest Trinitarian language that looks anything like “three persons, one substance.” You knew this, of course, but this is what’s funny about it. Tertullian wrote this after becoming a Montanist, and his ideas were initially rejected as heresy. But later, they were accepted as Christian orthodoxy. One other funny thing- upon his death, Tertullian was not in union with Rome.
    You have aligned your opinions with those of Rome. Coincidence or the Holy Spirit? I don’t think those are the only two viable options. It’s a matter of authority, and we’ve been over this already. Authoritarian people on one hand who rely primarily on “because I said,” and people with relevant expertise on the other hand who rely on proofs of natural law in the sense that it applies to contemporary jurisprudence- not in a strictly Thomistic sense, of course.

    @Pasta Primavera- What exactly is wrong with the teaching of HV? Wow, dude, if you have some kind of problem with the way I’m talking to people that is exactly the kind of question you do NOT want to ask. Are you sure you want this? Is that really what you want me to get into?
    Wrt your assertions, there is no causative link between contraception and “women as sex objects.” This is the kind of thing that must be proven, and you cannot prove it. This has been examined and it has been debunked. As a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion, contraception- properly used within marriage- does not lead to women being treated as sex objects. It can certainly coincide with sex-object behavior outside of marriage, but contraception does not cause this. Rather, it is extramarital sex that causes women to be treated as sex objects.
    “I have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur.” All right, I didn’t actually say that, but you still put quotes around it as if I did. But since you insist, go ahead. Tell me why I don’t have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur- or, to be a bit more accurate, tell me why I don’t have the wisdom to decide when there will be a 1 in 3 chance of implantation provided that conception does actually occur, which is also something that happens less than 100% of the time even under the best conditions.

    Also, for what it’s worth, the only thing a married Christian man is “telling God” while having sex with his wife is “Thank you for this.” And then God says “You’re welcome; I’m glad that you’re enjoying this for its physical pleasure and unitive purpose.” He does Not say “You’re not truly grateful unless you are doing everything in your power to make a baby right now, and this is something disordered that I never intended to allow.” That would be you, not God.

  • The bottom line is this: if you don’t want to have a baby, then don’t have sex. Period. You have no authority to separate the unitive from the procreative. Ever. You do not get to place yourself in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.

    Truly Yours,

    Pasta Primavera who thinks more of what Pope Paul VI said than what some self-made pontificator on theology and philosophy says.

  • I am a sinner.

    Paul P. gets it. We agree with the Church b/c bc usurps God’s Will in deciding who will live and when we will participate with Him in His creation of human life.

    There is a ton of civil authority stuff that I completely ignore.

  • @Pasta Primavera- how about this. You aren’t in charge, and you don’t get to say so. And by extension, I am saying this about the CC as well. How does that feel? I am not placing myself in God’s position; it would be far more accurate to say that I (and people who are more similar to me than to you) are preventing your religious leaders from usurping that position. Really now, do you see me going around saying I act in persona Christi? Really? Not me? Who, then? Because whoever is doing that- those are the people you need to talk to about arrogant snottiness and hubris.

  • “And by extension, I am saying this about the CC as well. How does that feel?”

    Ahistorical, since God was the founder of the Catholic Church.

    “Pasta Primavera- how about this. You aren’t in charge,”

    Dial it back with the name calling Mike if you wish to continue to comment on this site, and I am in charge of this blog.

  • Oh, good–Mike has tacitly abandoned his idiotic natural law argument.

  • Obama has no direct control over gas prices, though

    Yes he does. By restricting drilling in the Gulf, delaying Keystone XL (the Canada leg) and refusing to open up federal lands, he ensures that oil futures go up.

    Oh, and when he releases oil from the Strategic Reserve, the price immediately goes down.

    Yeah, the polls are properly taking gas out on him. I hope he refuses to listen.

  • I do agree with Mike: I am not in charge. Rather, Jesus Christ is in charge, and He told Peter, “Thou art Rock and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.” The Pope is the successor of Peter. So Christ is in charge, speaking through the Pope and the college of Bishops in union with him. Thus, Humanae Vitae, written by the successor of St. Peter, supersedes any opinion to the contrary.

    If a person engages in sexual intercourse, then that person has already made a decision to have a baby. It doesn’t matter if 6,999,999,999 people out of 7 billion disagree and think morality is different than what it really is. We human beings don’t get to determine what morality is. This is NOT a Democracy. It is a Monarchy and Jesus Christ is King absolute. Indeed, thinking that we can determine what is sin was in a sense the first sin – the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Truth, however, is objective and eternal, and His name is Jesus Christ.

    Now if that person we just talked about doesn’t want a baby, then that person must abstain from sexual intercourse. All sophistry to the contrary is simply nonsense in verbosity. Does one have control over the passions of one’s lust – sexual longings or whatever else one may want to call it – or does one not have such self-control? Will we behave like mindless baboons, contracepting our way out of accountability and responsibility, or will we behave in the image and likeness of God Himself as we were created to do? God’s first command to Adam and Eve was, “Be fruitful and multiply.” It was not, “Abort and contracept.” Any pretense at being logical and rational and reasonable and scientific while maintaining a contraceptive mentality is simply oxymoronic.

    Indeed, the three sins in the Garden of Eden were (yeah, I probably got them out of order, but the order in Matthew 4 is different than in Luke 4):

    The Lust of the Eyes – Eve saw the fruit was pleasing to look on
    The Lust of the Flesh – Eve saw the fruit was good to eat
    The Pride of Life – The fruit would give Eve and Adam knowledge to be like God

    Christ had to face these temptations after 40 days in the wilderness:

    The Lust of the Eyes – Look at these kingdoms; just bow down and I’ll give them to you
    The Lust of the Flesh – Turn these stones into Bread; no need to go hungry!
    The Pride of Life – Cast Yourself down; nothing will happen! You’re special!

    Contraception is unique in all sins because it caves in to all three simultaneously.

    The Lust of the Eyes – She’s beautiful; go for it!
    The Lust of the Flesh – It’s sex! You need some pleasure in your life!
    The Pride of Life – Use contraception! No baby! No responsibility!

    1 John 2:15-16 sums this up quite well:

    16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.

  • Goodbye Mike. Share your views at other venues. You are banned from this one.

  • Sorry. I meant to say 1st John 2:16-17. Can’t type!

  • Apology.

    In my statement of Friday, March 23, 2012 A.D. at 1:10 pm, I stated, “You do not get to place yourself in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.”

    I apologize to Mike. I did not mean for those sentences to be a direct reflection onto him. That statement should have said, “One does not get to place one’s self in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.”

    It is important to take the “personal” out of this as some have reminded me. As is often said in 12 Step programs, “Principles before personalities.” (Now that statement is likely to get me criticized for violating the 11th Tradition – can’t please everybody.) In our case, the principle is Jesus Christ and His Church, and that’s why we don’t get to contracept and abort our way to happiness. No one gets to tell God when He may start new life, or when life may end (the only exception being Romans 13:1-7 where God gives the State the authority to defend its citizens). Unfortunately, I sometimes (OK, too often) fail to place that principle above my own feelings (and I suspect I am not alone in that defect of character).

    PS, as far as being “Pasta Primavera,” I guess that title didn’t bother me all that much. Don’t know why. I usually take off like a ballistic missile when so “challenged”. Maybe it’s because I like “pasta primavera” as a food dish?

  • A fine example of evangelization and cool-reason, this thread is.

    Mike, if you are still reading, there are two aspects to the topic of contraception that need separation: the ends and the means. The end of contraception is not always opposed by the Church. The means of contraception is always opposed by the Church.

    The end of contraception — not conceiving a child — is sometimes approved by the Church, and is actually mandated as a duty in cases where having a child would be destructive to a marriage and to a family. So the motives for using contraception can be good and reasonable.

    It is the means of contraception — the sterilization of the sexual act — that is always opposed by the Church. There are other ways of preventing conception that do not involve the sterilization of the sexual act, nor involve complete abstinence.

    So you’ve got two different moral challenges here. One is the decision of a couple to delay the conception of a child (perhaps indefinitely). The other is in how the couple affects the delay of that conception.

    The thing is that life is hard, and the path that leads to life is narrow. The sterilization of the sexual act is an easy way to have sex without having kids. The right way to have sex without having kids is to track cycles of fertility, and ultimately, to have a little faith in God that the conception of a child is a good thing (even if requiring not a bit of personal sacrifice).

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it

The Value of Well-Paid Advisers

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

I don’t often call-back prior posts, but now I am going to do it twice in one day.  Yesterday I discussed a Jennifer Rubin article that criticized Santorum for, among other things, failing to surround himself with a troupe of advisers to help him stay on track as a candidate.

Meet Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom.  Earlier today he had this exchange on CNN:

HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

ERIC FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.

People have been having a lot of fun with this comment on twitter, and it took about ten minutes for this to make its way into a political ad:

Maybe we should say former Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstron.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Value of Well-Paid Advisers

  • Ahem. Toldja so.

    Conservatives and GOP voters, you’re being PLAYED! Why? Because the establishment knows they can always scare you with a parade of horribles that awaits if the other guy is elected, and you’ll fall right in line and vote for whatever RINO stiff they put up.

  • Oh, the parade of horribles is real enough Jay, as the Obama first term indicates. I shudder to contemplate what an Obama second term would be like. Having said that, I assume ERIC FEHRNSTROM perfectly reflects the thinking of the Romney campaign for the general election, which is a perfectly disastrous way of making certain the conservative base stays alienated. As I have stated, I think Romney is a rotten politician. If he is the nominee I do not expect him to win against Obama. However, I do expect Obama to lose to whoever the Republicans choose.

  • This is how a campaign implodes. This creates an opening for Newt and possibly Santorum, although Rick tends to be the Republican Joe Biden by walking around with his foot in his mouth. I do believe that he thinks the GOP should be proud of morphing into a Big Government, borrow and spend party for ‘right wing’ purposes and his support of the Global Fund as well as some wishy-washy pro-life votes are certainly problematic. Advantage Newt. Louisiana will be the end of Romney and if the Republicans pick Myth RINO-Money as the nominee – the GOP will lose.

    To spare your conscience if the Republicans are as dumb as I think they are – there is the Constitution Party.

  • “To spare your conscience if the Republicans are as dumb as I think they are – there is the Constitution Party.”

    That’s how I plan to vote, American Knight, especially if Virgil Goode wins the Constitution Party nomination.

  • Jay,

    While I am very hopeful that my fellow Virginian Goode will secure the CP nomination, I still hold out hope that I will have an opportunity to vote for Newt – an opportunity of which I was robbed on Super Tuesday because our governor hopes to be Myth RINO-Money’s VP.

    I could pull the lever for Santorum, but the Republican Joe Biden is likely to get thumped by BHO. Although as VP, it would be fun to watch Santorum debate Biden. They can just put one another’s feet in each other’s mouth. Perhaps not too good to have Catholics represented that way. but entertaining nonetheless.

    NEWT 2012!

  • It is absolutely imperative that BHO be defeated in the next election. It would be a good thing if we of third parties (I am a Libertarian/libertarian) but a vote for a third party candidate is likely a vote for BHO and we can not tolerate that. This man and his party MUST be soundly defeated. WE may have to hold our nose at the polls, but we have done that before. We as citizens and voters can then have the person more likely to represent our conservative views in place and deal with that person as necessary. They would likely be more receptive to our views than the current occupant.

  • Dan,

    While I respect your opinion: been there, done that; I don’t think so this time around. We reluctantly voted for McCain last time, most of us because he chose Sarah Palin as a running mate – the devil won that election. Cunning serpent has put himself on both conventional options this time, assuming Republicans are dumb enough to force Myth RINO-Money on us.

    When you have a pro-infanticide candidate, a pro-abortion candidate (who claims he’s pro-life, but is NOT) and a pro-life candidate – you vote for the pro-lifer – assuming the R candidate is Romney (I still hold out hope that it is not), then that candidate is likely to be Virgil Goode. If voting for him means a victory for BHO (which I don’t think it will be, because Romney suppresses votes, so BHO will win with considerably less votes than 2008 if running against the Mormon); then that is God’s choice and in some ways (I do not profess to know how God thinks) it will be a fitting punishment for an idolatrous and lazy nation. Additionally, Romney may lull us into complacency and decline, where BHO will enhance polarization.

    Polarization is good, because we are way too corrupt and a purging is necessary. This can be non-violent (if you exclude the holocaust against the pre-born); but, if it is not, then we would not be the first, nor the last nation to suffer from violence when godlessness reigns.

    Pragmatism is a dangerous political mindset. Realism and trust in God is far more practical.

    NEWT 2012!

  • Ditto what American Knight said (except the Newt part 😉 ).

    Virgil Goode represented me for many years when I lived in the Commonwealth, and is personal friend. He was very helpful to me in my efforts to revitalize our town when I was mayor of Columbia, VA.

    There is no way in hell that I would vote for a fraud like Mitt Romney over a principled pro-life, limited government conservative (who is also a personal friend) such as Virgil Goode.

  • More Flippery Fail–Romney loved him some higher fuel prices back in 2006:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/101946/mitt-romney-massachusetts-governor-gas-prices-renewable-energy

    I can’t wait to hear the spin on this one.

  • Jay: When’s the Constitution Party convention, anyway?

  • Next month in Nashville. I believe it’s April 19-22.

    Unfortunately, I can’t make it because of:

    (1) a prior commitment with my 1st Communion class (Pro Ecclesia), and
    (2) a prior commitment with my kids to be up your way to watch a rematch of last year’s ALCS (Pro Familia),

    which means that my civic duty (Pro Civitate) is going to have to wait.

    😉

Vote for the National Catholic Register (Now)!

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

The National Catholic Register is tied with Our Sunday Visitor for the best Catholic Newspaper in Christendom! The voting ends tonight so vote and put the Reg over the top!

The National Catholic Register has been selected as a finalist in the 2012 About.com Catholicism Readers’ Choice Awards in these categories: Best Catholic Newspaper, Best Catholic Website, Best Catholic Radio Show, Best Catholic Facebook Page, Best Catholic to Follow on Twitter. You can cast one vote, in all five categories, every day of the voting period. Voting runs until 11:59 P.M. EST on Wednesday, March 21, 2012.

Click here to vote.

Note: The above was freely edited from the mad journalistic skillz of Matt “Not Pat” Archbold.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Vote for the National Catholic Register (Now)!

So Which Is It?

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

In light of yesterday’s post about Morning Minion’s challenges to Rick Santorum’s authentic Catholicity, I found this column at the Huffington Post to be quite interesting.  (Vox Nova and Huffington Post mentioned on the same blog post?  Please, do not panic.  You eyes will not explode.)  If you recall, this is one of the claims that Tony made about Santorum:

Santorum defines his theology as stemming from the bible (Protestant) as opposed to the single sacred deposit of the Word of God comprising sacred scripture and sacred tradition (Catholic).

On the other hand, Professor Howard Schreber observes:

Rick Santorum is a case in point. Santorum’s is a specifically Catholic form of faith. The recent flap over contraception is only an example of a much deeper phenomenon. As observers have noted, he talks frequently about natural law, but rarely quotes the Bible directly — his arguments draw on a theologically informed view of the nature of the world, not a personal relationship with the text.

Indeed, in the past Santorum has been quite forthright about the fact that he does not look to the Bible for guidance, he relies quite properly on the guidance of the Church. There is obviously nothing wrong with that … but it sits very curiously with traditional Evangelical Protestant attitudes.

Now, one of these individuals sounds more intimately familiar with what Rick Santorum has actually written and said in his life.  I’ll leave it to you to guess which one.

I think that Shreber both overstates the connection between conservative Evangelicals and Catholics and understates the broad schism that still lingers at the heart of their respective philosophies (both theological and political).  But his post is worth a read.

Less worthy of your time – this screed by Daniel Nichols, which concludes thusly:

This is a man [Santorum], in the final analysis, despite his piety, is willing to contradict what his Church teaches to serve America.

This, my friends, is idolatry.

To choose Rick Santorum for president is to choose Nation over Church, this world over heaven, and Mammon over God.

When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.

 

Continue reading...

8 Responses to So Which Is It?

  • Daniel’s gold standard is actually recriminatory pseudo-pacifism, conjoined to a loathing of the State of Israel.

  • For some reason, I failed to recognize myself or other Santorum supporters in Nichols’ hatefest.

    Probably because I’m so tired from constant prostrations before statues of Uncle Sam and Ayn Rand.

  • It’s either lies or nonsense.

    Sacred Catholic tradition only applies when convenient to liberal liars (I repeated myself again).

    I remember before becoming completely hateful, A. Sullivan wrote this of Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the US/UK invasion of Iraq: He called the Pope’s stand, ” . . . traditional Catholic anti-semitism.”

  • One liberal criticizes Santorum one way. Another liberal accuses Santorum of being just the opposite and uses that to criticize him. But liberals of course are never wrong even when one says one thing and the other the diametrically opposite.

    BTW, liberals are never right, either. Why? Because they are left! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    I just can’t bring myself to read either the Huffington Post or Vox Nova or anything liberal. Putting feces back intio my brain after God took out so much feces out simply seems counter-productive (and an insult to Him).

  • “When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.”

    Paul Z., you’ll have to excuse the catholic left for its unhinged views in toto. Can you just imagine the cognitive dissonance you would have trying to be catholic and anti-Catholic simultaneously? The secular left has a much easier job by comparison.

  • Oddly, Morning Minion would not have followed Catholic tradition (which he praises really only in its modern socially active forms) from 1253 A.D. when Pope Innocent IV made burning heretics mandatory on secular rulers til about 1816 when Pius VII stopped torture in the papal states. On the internet, all things papal- tradition are mistakenly infallible…like the most fleeting intellectual foray into the death penalty issue by two recent Popes.
    Morning Minion would have been Quaker in the 18th century on slavery rather than tolerating the four exceptions that Catholic theologians of the time permitted to Catholics (hence the Jesuits had 500 slaves in the US in 1836 despite bulls which only seemed to be absolute on slavery).
    Morning Minion would not have been criticizing pick and choose Catholics in 1520 when Pope Leo X supported burning heretics nearly 300 years after Innocent IV made it mandatory on seculars. For those unused to me, I do not support burning heretics. Christ made a point to twice praise the Samaritans for actions despite their rejection of the OT canon. I do support Catholics using their brain when the non infallible papal thoughts are present. Thankfully no Catholics right or left have taken to their heart Benedict’s odd love of a world authority in Caritas in Veritate:
    “for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”.
    Thanks…but no thanks…what if Obama or the like rises to its apex.

  • While Daniel Nichols has the underlying kneejerk sensibilities of the typical american liberal, but that is where the similarity to him and morning minion ends.

    Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    For all practical purposes Santorum and morning minion are cut from the same cloth. In fact morning minion has far more in common with those who write on this blog, American Catholic, than he has with Daniel Nichols.

    Daniel is correct in his depiction of Santorum because he actually recognizes Santorums feet of clay for what they are, and names those errors. Where as morning minion detests Santorum because morning minion is a democratic shill.

  • Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    I’ve been arguing with Daniel Nichols for five or six years now. The most salient aspect of his utterances cannot be characterized as ‘traditional Catholic’ or ‘liberal’. Words like ‘spite’ and ‘animosity’ would have to be employed to describe things.

Ronald Reagan: For God and Country

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

The things that you find on YouTube.  Ronald Reagan in a training film for Army chaplains, For God and Country (1943).  Much higher production values than the average training film, and I found it moving.   Reagan was assigned to the 1rst Motion Picture Unit of the United States Army Air Corps.  During the War it made some 400 training films for the Army.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ronald Reagan: For God and Country

  • I’ll concede that compared to the current crop of politicians, Ronnie looks good. However, While it is easy to feel misty-eyed about good ol’ Dutch exuding sunlight from that ever-smiling actor studio’s face, there are other images that persist:
    • A clearly winded Ronnie, in his second term, falling asleep in front of the Pope.
    • Trading arms for hostages.
    • Running a trillion-dollar national debt to three trillion, thanks to lot of money for tanks, bombs and missiles.
    • Ordering the bombing of Libya, which resulted in several deaths, including that of Khaddafi’s adopted daughter, on flimsy evidence that that country was behind the bombing of a Berlin nightclub.
    * Ordering bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan. He even admitted the U.S. intervention into Lebanon was one of his biggest regrets.
    • His low opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. Reluctantly signed MLK holiday. Asked if King was a communist sympathizer, Reagan responded: “We’ll know in 35 years, won’t we?” referring to sealed documents.
    Hollywood-trained that image was everything, substance nothing, Reagan was scripted to the core, from host of GE’s TV theater, reading from a cue card, to the schamltzy “touch of the face of God” speech after the Challenger astronauts died – most of his speeches written by the likes of Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchanan.
    Like both Bushes, Reagan was never very hard-working, put in a 9 to 5 day five days a week, napped often and vacationed at his palatial ranch in California with a moon-faced Nancy perpetually guarding the gates and fending off the press.
    Perhaps given undue credit for “defeating” the Soviet Union “without firing a shot” is the biggest mistake conventional wisdom makes in the instant rush to write history. Reagan’s “evil empire” speech had no effect on the Russians, as Gorby and others said, but rather it came at a time when the USSR was overburdened by massive defense spending in an attempt to keep up with Reagan’s runaway Pentagon budget.
    But who wants to spoil Americans’ image of Reagan atop a white horse, metaphorically leading the charge against the “Evil Empire,” cowboy hat jauntily placed amid the orange-dyed locks with the Battle Hymn of the Republic crescendoing in the background.
    To be sure, Reagan had some good qualities such as connecting with the masses. Some, however, would prefer to remember him as “The Great Prevaricator” rather than “The Great Communicator.” He told some whoppers.
    Of course, all presidents lie – it’s how they get elected and keep office for the most part. I’ll give Reagan credit for at least being able to read the script virtually flawlessly. Poor George W. Bush. He was not only the most intellectually shallow person ever to occupy the White House, he also mispronounces the most elemental words.
    Although I’d hold my nose and vote for Romney, he is no Reagan. The last good President we had was Ike but most on here weren’t even born yet when he ran the show. The prosperity, peace and unity of the fifties, Korea notwithstanding, will never been duplicated again.
    Even with Rubio on the ticket, Romney will stumble during the final months of the campaign as the Obama propaganda machine gets into full gear, the MSM making sure that their boy gets another 4 years to seal the country’s doom.
    I’ve said before that if that happens, resources permitting, I would become an ex-pat and although my first choice would be Costa Rica, I am thinking that I would settle into a cheap apartment in Rome to be near the Vatican, which I would visit every day to help restore my now weak Catholic belief. In short, I have given up on America.

  • Joe,

    I’m looking at NZ and Chile, too. Rome: hadn’t thought of that. Worth a look. Wait until the euro crashes.

    I remember Ike and the ’50’s and ’60’s. I was dealing with a salesman 10 years younger than me and he lamented having come of age in the ’70’s. I had to agree.

    Guys like you and I may be unhappy now. At least we can look back on better times – the best years of our lives. The young ones never had it GOOD, and things will get worse.

    God help them.

  • Mr. Shaw. Just finished Pat Buchanan’s book, Suicide of a Superpower, which renewed my nostalgia for the “good old days,” along with Stephen King’s Book, 11-22-63, which also transported me back to a better age.

    I no longer identify with the current or previous generation and suppose I’ve become embittered and misogynistic in my old age, pining for an era of simplicity and civility that no longer exists. Which is why my Catholic faith is returning because it is the one thing I can cling to as I hopefully merit God’s grace and go to a far better place.

    For me, Keats, in Ode to a Grecian Urn, sums up life on this earth: “Beauty is truth and truth beauty. Tis all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.”

  • T. Shaw and Joe Green – I also remember and value as a standard, the civility and simplicity of life until the early 60’s when the balance in life started to go heavily toward the material here and now and lighter on innocence, faith, and reason. The young and children have such a different way with life these days (computers and dangers). I marvel at what I was unaware of even at age 21. It’s interesting to think of alternative residencies (the depth of being near the only outpost of Truth)( often think of my mother’s cousin in Italy who would never visit here), but I’m at a loss and the logistics are overwhelming … I think it was Franz Kafka, who wrote ‘A Clean, Well-Lit Room’. And, Jesus, in so many ways, warned against taking the things of the world to follow Him. He also said to keep lamps ready for when He returns. I don’t want to be out of oil for my lamp at that time. At least here – familiarity.

  • Ronald Wilson Reagan is the greatest president of my lifetime, including Eisenhower.

    My list of the top ten Reagan accomplishments:

    1. Restoring America’s economic prosperity. Reagan through his policies vanquished the inflation that had been roaring through the seventies, and lowered the astronomical interest rates. People not alive then will have a hard time comprehending the deep ditch the economy was in before Reagan took office.

    2. Reagan restored American military strength. A perfect symbol for American military impotence under Carter was the failed rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages.

    3. Reagan successfully ended the Cold War in victory by convincing the Soviet leadership that they could not keep up with America militarily.

    4. Reagan halted the expansion of Communism in Central America and oversaw the successful resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan.

    5. Reagan reduced the size of the Federal government in relationship to gnp by about 5%, almost an impossible accomplishment with the appetite of govenment for growth.

    6. Reagan was fond of saying that Communism was on its way to the ashheap of history. For that, he was often denounced by his detractors at the time as simple minded at best and a warmonger at worst. Reagan knew which way history was running and his detractors did not.

    7. Reagan gave the pro-life movement a strong bully pulpit, best typified by this essay he wrote for the Human Life Review in 1983:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

    Reagan and his followers transformed the GOP into a party where pro-lifers predominate.

    8. Reagan restored pride in the country among many Americans. His campaign theme in the 1984 election was “It’s Morning Again in America” He won 49 states.

    9. Under Jimmy Carter it was common for people to say that the Presidency had become too big a job for one man, too complex. No one said that during the Reagan administration. From his first day to his last day in office he never had any doubt about what he wanted to accomplish and how to go about it. An uncertain rider makes a poor horseman, and an uncertain President does a poor job. Reagan was never uncertain.

    10. Reagan took a country that was manifestly in decline by most standards when he took office and left the country the sole superpower by the time he left.

    Reagan was not perfect and here are some of the criticisms of Reagan I have listed before on this blog:

    1. Reagan simply refused to veto spending bills on a regular basis and as a result the national debt soared.

    2. Reagan committed the Marines to Lebanon with no plan and after the barracks bombing he retreated from Lebanon in disarray, a complete foreign policy debacle.

    3. Reagan’s staff was often incompetent and he refused to do anything about it.

    4. Reagan often confused giving a good speech on a problem with actually doing something about the problem.

    5. The White House rarely had an effective strategy for raising public support for judicial nominees which directly led to the “Borking” of Judge Bork in 1987.

    6. Reagan often listened to Nancy who had disastrous political instincts.

    7. Reagan was too much of a “hands off” President which led to the Iran-Contra debacle which was caused by relatively low level figures such as Colonel North running riot with almost no adult supervision.

    8. Reagan was a disaster at using his popularity to help in Congressional races which led to the losses in the House in 82 and the loss of the Senate in 86.

    9. Reagan allowed himself to be outfoxed time and again by Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neal and was unable to understand his combination of personal amiability with unrelenting partisanship.

    10. For all his talk about Federalism the size and power of the Federal government continued to grow under his tenure, although he reduced it against the size of gnp.

    Having said that I wish there was space on Mount Rushmore to place the Gipper’s face up there. A nation is lucky to have a statesman of Reagan’s calibre at its head every century or two and I deem it a privilege to have lived during his administration.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Don, thanks for adding some perspective and balance to my rather harsh critique of the Gipper. In retrospect I’d take him over any president in the past 60 years. However, I’d put Ike on Rushmore so make room for one more.

  • Ike at his finest Joe, drafting this statement in the event D-Day failed:

    “Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

  • Europeans also have a lot to thank Reagan for, particularly those in central Europe. In 1994 I ran into some Poles in Budapest who insisted on buying me a drink and whose only English was ‘Ronald Reagan’ and ‘Margaret Thatcher’. Eisenhower’s second term is now viewed much more positively, and it’s a pity that Nixon wasn’t elected in 1960 – there would have been no Berlin Wall, no Cuban missile crisis and quite possibly no Vietnam War.

    On a liturgical note – although he holds the paten correctly between first and second fingers, the thumb and forefinger of the left hand are not conjoined, and the slight bows in the Libera nos are omitted.

When the Man is Right, He is Right

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw the state treasury would be exhausted.

Cicero, Speech in Defense of Publius Sestius

Faithful readers of this blog know that I am not a big fan of Romney aka the Weathervane, to say the least, but he is right on target here.  The ever broadening expectation of many in this country for “freebies” from Uncle Sucker is destroying American pride, self-respect and our economy.  Romney’s total rejection of this mentality, as exemplified by the heckler’s demand for “free” contraceptives, impresses me more due to it being impromptu and also being in front of a somewhat hostile college audience.  If he is the nominee, he will need many such moments to attract doubting conservatives to the polls.  Some, like my good friend Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia, will not vote for him under any circumstances.  Others can be persuaded.  He has a long way to go to assuage my many doubts about him, and to make my vote for him in November if he is the nominee something other than a purely anti-Obama vote, but this is a start.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to When the Man is Right, He is Right

  • Good response by Romney. Love the Cicero quote.

    😀

  • Bank on it: He’ll have a different answer once he safely has the nomination and the General Election gets into full swing.

  • “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message–for the moment.”

  • Ok, that was slightly flip. Yeah, it was a good answer, as far as it went. I’m not sure how far it will carry him in the general, which is why, with Jay, I’m skeptical of him taking even this tack after the convention.

    It appears he’s going to run on purely economic issues, without acknowledging that we have reached this point because of a crisis of values. And I’m not necessarily referring to religious values, either. Mark Steyn made the point quite well yesterday.

    http://www.steynonline.com/4867/weird-politics

  • The reality is your choices will be stay at home and don’t vote; vote for Romney or vote for Obama. Santorum will not be the nominee. I believe it is incumbent on us to do everything within our power to defeat Obama, even if the nominee is Daffy Duck. This election is for keeps and the most important in our lifetimes.

    Jeb Bush just endorsed Romney.

  • I’m with JT.

    Give the Republic the coup d’grace: stay home or vote third party.

    Republican Rome survived about 100 years of “bread and circuses.”

    How long will our Republic exist?

  • Careful, Don. A few more of these posts stringed together and you’ll be accused of being a full fledged Romney-ite!

    Supporting Romney is kinda like taking out the trash, it stinks but you just gotta do it or you’ll regret it later.

  • “The reality is your choices will be stay at home and don’t vote; vote for Romney or vote for Obama.”

    Actually, I’m doing none of the above. I’ll be voting for an acceptable 3rd party candidate, such as Virgil Goode should he win the Constitution Party nomination.

    Vote for Mitt Romney and you’ll have proven to the GOP that, no matter what kind of RINO turd sandwich they serve you, you’ll eat it. We already proved that to some extent by voting for John McCain, which is why the GOP didn’t learn their lesson and has given us yet another RINO. But, whatever his numerous faults and departures from the conservative reservation, at least John McCain had an overall conservative record to point to. Romney has no such record, and only decided 5 years ago at the age of 60 that he was suddenly a “conservative”.

    Keep voting that way, and keep telling yourself as you yet again have to hold your nose to pull the lever that “Next time, we’ll get a REAL conservative that shares my values as the nominee.” Yeah, good luck with that.

  • When the man is right, he is right. Campaigning is different from administrating. He wants administrate this very messy country back into some semblance of order and that is more than enough to do now. I believe the other branches will then be able to work.

  • Jay- Just out of curiosity who was the last Presidential candidate that ran on the Republican ticket that you could support in good conscience, since Romney with all his faults is apparently beyond the pale?

  • If you are against Obama’s re-election and you vote for a third party candidate, and not for Obama’s real opponent, Daf … er Romney, you are in effect voting for Obama.

  • “… who was the last Presidential candidate that ran on the Republican ticket that you could support in good conscience, since Romney with all his faults is apparently beyond the pale?”

    George W. Bush. I had my differences with him, but overall, I believed he was as in tune with my values as any president in my lifetime. It was after 2004 that I saw him as going off the rails.

    In 2008, I had made up my mind not to vote for McCain, and then he put Palin on the ticket. At that point, I was supporting Palin and that other guy. Wish I had stuck to my original conviction not to vote for him (not because I don’t still strongly support Palin – I do, but because McCain is just such a miserable piece of work).

    As for Romney, he is easily the least conservative likely nominee since Gerald Ford. I wouldn’t have voted for Ford had I been old enough to vote, and I won’t vote for Romney.

  • I voted for Ford, but only because Reagan endorsed him after coming so achingly close at the convention, and because I knew that James Earl Carter, Jr. was going to be our worst president since Buchanan. I had a feeling of disaster from the first time I saw him on TV. Thank God Reagan didn’t put Ford on the ticket in 1980. Ford, always deeply unimaginative, and always being played by the Democrats, exemplified why the Republicans spent 46 years as a minority in the House.

  • Thank God Reagan didn’t put Ford on the ticket in 1980

    Wow, was that actually contemplated?

  • Don, I was only 12 (almost 13) at the time of the GOP Convention in 1980, but I distinctly remember when the rumor was being floated by certain establishment types and their buddies in the media about a Ford “co-presidency”. Even at that tender age, I went into something of a panic. “Oh no, after all this, he’s going to blow it by putting Ford on the ticket?”

    In retrospect, I’m not convinced that the Ford rumor wasn’t initially floated by some brilliant person in the Reagan inner circle to make the choice of George H.W. Bush more palatable to conservatives.

  • Could be Jay. I think Reagan was also impressed with the fact that Bush would be a loyal number 2 for him, which he was.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it

Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Well that’s certainly how I read this screed by Morning’s Minion.  It seems that Rick has offended the Magisterium of Vox Nova.

I get annoyed by silly media talk of Santorum’s connections to Opus Dei, everybody’s favorite dark and sinister Catholic cloak-and-dagger society.

Such a promising beginning.  Then it unravels.

The underlying assumption is that Santorum is a deeply orthodox Catholic, with a whiff of old-school authoritarianism about him. But this is nonsense. Opus Dei is a traditionalist Catholic group, heavily influenced by Spanish spirituality. It’s not my cup of tea, but it puts strong emphasis on fidelity to Church teachings, and I assume that means all Church teachings. Santorum, on the other hand, is a classic American right-wing liberal, picking and choosing his Church teachings, and with a spirituality that seems far more evangelical than Catholic. It is no accident that Santorum’s core support comes from right-wing evangelicals, not Catholics. Opus Dei has a vaguely “foreign” feel in the United States. Nobody could possibly say that about Santorum!

Goodness gracious.  My favorite part is where MM describe Santorum’s spirituality as “Evangelical,” whatever that means.  It’s the usual litany of cliches from Tony: right-wing liberals, scary Evangelical bogeymen, accusations of cafeteria Catholicism.  Honestly at this point you can play the Morning’s Minion drinking game and you’d be drunk by the second paragraph.  As for the astute observation that Santorum polls better with Evangelicals than with Catholics – well, I’m not sure if that fact reflects poorly on Santorum or on other Catholics.  Considering that many Catholics share Minion’s, umm, unique perspective on the faith it’s not surprising that Santorum is not doing so well with his co-religionists.

As for the specific charges that Morning’s Minion lays out against Santorum, I’ll link to Lisa Graas’s blog post here, and paste her responses after the jump.  She does a good job dismantling every claim laid against Santorum, and so I have nothing else to add.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

  • Who brought popcorn? This could be entertaining…

  • Many of MM’s points are over the top, but some, at least, do require more careful consideration.

    American Exceptionalism

    Well, it depends upon what MM means by American Exceptionalism. I can’t venture over to VN without my blood pressure rising to unhealthy levels, so I can only guess that he does not mean it is anti-Catholic to love one’s country or be proud of its achievements, but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries. The attitude of “when other contries do it, it’s wrong; but when America does it, it’s ok.” E.g., torturing is wrong when Iran does it, but not when we do it.

    Rick Santorum supports the use of force against prisoners, not to extract confessions to crimes or to intimidate the individual, but to save lives.

    But you do the same thing the pro-choicers do – that is, you leave off what is implicit in the action. Pro-choicers always talk about freedom of choice, but rarely say the freedom to choose what? To murder.

    Likewise, you say Rick supports the use of force, not to intimidate the individual, but to save lives. But how does he save these lives? By intimidating (if not worse) the individual. You can say this is not “ends justifies the means” but that’s exactly what it is. Even just war doctrine does not support torture. Just war doctrine relates to two things – having a just reason to go to war (which is what Grass is probably alluding to) and conducting the war in a just manner. One can be justified to go to war, but conduct the war in an an unjust manner (e.g., by torturing prisoners) and thereby still transgress just war teaching.

    It is also very vague on what is meant by force in this context – how much? Whatever it takes? Are there any limits? If so, what are they? If enemies did the same action to our citizens, would it be different (eg, if Japanese forces captured one of the Enola Gay pilots before the bombings, would they be allowed to “apply force” to find out the intended targets?).

  • By the way, his screed does seem to offer at least a “left-handed” compliment to Opus Dei. Maybe he’s getting soft.

  • All you need to know about Tony A is that he has now on at least 2 occasions (and I’m sure there are more) made his stand with the most anti-Catholic administration in this nation’s history and against the Bishops of his own Church on matters of utmost importance: (1) the Stupak Amendment, which would have clearly and unequivocally included Hyde Amendment type language in ObamaCare; and (2) the HHS mandate. Tony routinely on these matters disparages those Bishops as out of touch and ignorant and partisan, while pretending that Obama is the embodiment of Catholic Social Teaching.

    Tony says Santorum is “anti-Catholic”? Then let’s be honest about Tony: he’s not a Catholic at all – he’s a Democrat first, last, and always. He’s a hard-core, left-wing statist hiding behind a fascade of Catholicism as a means of pushing what is at its core a secularist, anti-Catholic agenda that sees the government picking winners and losers in internal Church affairs, and determining Church doctrine and which Church activities constitute the practice of “religion” and which do not.

    Following Santorum’s preferred agenda would not threaten the Catholic Church or the Catholic faith in the least. Following Tony’s preferred agenda has brought this country as close to the precipace of anti-religious tyranny as we’ve ever been.

    NOW tell me who’s “anti-Catholic”?

  • , but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries.

    Tony doesn’t explain what he means by this, but this is certainly not what Santorum believes.

    As for the bullet about torture, this is admittedly one area where I have some quibbles with Santorum (and thus with Lisa’s defense of him). I won’t go into further detail because I really don’t want Catholic combox discussion #9235029554222 about whether or not the use of waterboarding is intrinsically evil.

  • Here are a few more targets for Pope Tony to excommunicate on the charge of American Exceptionalism:

    “Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

    Pope Leo XIII

    “Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.”

    Pope Bendict XVI

    “Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: “Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.”

    Pope John Paul II

    “A few days after the liberation of Rome, Lieutenant General Mark Clark, Commander of the Fifth Allied Army, paid his respects to the Pope: “I am afraid you have been disturbed by the noise of my tanks. I am sorry.” Pius XII smiled and replied: “General, any time you come to liberate Rome, you can make just as much noise as you like.””
    Pius XII

    Then we have Pio Nono who contributed a block of marble for the building of the Washington Monument.

    Pope Tony had better buy his bulls of excommunication by the gross.

  • The comments are hysterical, as Tony is being chided for being too soft on Opus Dei.

  • Well, I went too far in saying that Tony is not a Catholic at all, and for that I apologize. I certainly don’t want to be in the business of excommunicating those with whom I have philosophical, theological, and political differences. That’s a bit above my “paygrade”.

    But the rest of my comment stands. Tony is FAR more guilty of promoting an “anti-Catholic” agenda than Santorum is.

  • Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?

    Santorum is one of the most pro-family, pro-life, faithful to the Magisterium Catholics we’ve seen run for the highest office in the land and they deign to attack him?

  • “Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?”

    When it ventures into the political realm, with certain honorable exceptions among their writers, yes.

  • Jay, the only — ONLY — evidence for Morning’s Minion’s Catholicism is his own insistence upon it. He’s one of those I’ve been saying that bishops need to bring into line. He needs to get with the Church, or get out of it.

  • One commits a horrid error when one equates big-government socialism with the Gospels . . .

    VN needs to read and believe the Gospels, not Marx and Lenin.

    Someone tell them their definition of “social justice” is not the alibi for every mortal sin in the Book.

    Gospel “Planks in their eyes” – hundreds of aerial drone murders; 45,000,000 abortions; hundreds of millions of contraceptions; endless aggressive wars; every day fomenting mass class envy/hatred; gay privileges; etc.

    Speck – three mass murderers water-boarded; tax cuts for the hated rich; what-have-you; trying to keep it so as working class Americans can afford food and fuel; and etc.

    Capital punishment hasn’t been outlawed by Uncle Joe Biden’s boss, either.

  • Lisa is outright wrong about the torture issue. No need to rehash the arguments for the regular readers here. Newcomers can google ‘catholic waterboarding’ to get what they need.

  • There are quite orthodox thinkers who do not believe every act of coercive force is torture. Some very good ones outside the self-appointed, non-trained “experts.”

    Some intelligent and non-inflammatory discussion of the topic:

    http://www.aina.org/news/20090430085120.jsp

  • Water-boarding is so last administration. That was then.

    This is now. The Obama regime savagely (human dignity! Veritatus Splendor!!) ) kills them with unmanned aerial drones.

  • I, too, have tangled with Tony before over multiple issues. I am happier to report we have come to an amiable truce. While Tony’s critiques of American Catholicism’s tendency to see the faith through an overly-American prism can be over-the-top, they also can be a helpful corrective.

    The problem, I think, comes from the fact that I think it can be fairly said likewise that Tony sees the faith through lenses that are too uncritical of continental European assumptions and concerns.

    Also, it would help if Tony would read Santorum’s “It Takes A Family.” Santorum’s conservatism is a lot more solidarity-oriented and less-atomistic individualist than the standard American conservative template.

  • Pingback: So Which Is It? | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Santorum and Catholic Italian Politics « Michael D. Driessen

Don’t Know Much About History

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

No, seriously, our Vice President knows next to nothing about history.  Speaking about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, ole Joe said:

“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there.”

William Tecumseh Sherman, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Dwight Eisenhower, Napoleon Bonaparte, Winston Churchill, and Ulysses S. Grant could not be reached for comment, but surely they would have agreed.

Sure was a good thing we didn’t elect that idiot Sarah Palin, or else we would have had a Vice President who continuously made completely idiotic remarks.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Don’t Know Much About History

  • Quick someone ask Obama to spell “audacious.”

    At least, Uncle Biden isn’t what his liberal allies called Governor Palin.

    Starting 1512 (2012 – 500 = 1512) off the top of my head:

    Hernan Cortez

    Francisco Pizarro

    Ferdinand Magellan

    Ponce de leon

    Henry Hudson

    John Cabot

    the Pilgrims

    The Minute Men at Lexington and Concord

    Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys capture of artillery at Ticondaroga and haul it by hand and oxen to Boston

    Doolittle’s air raid on Tokyo

    Enough!

    When he needs to quit government quarters next January, he will be over-qualified to be a college professor.

  • Sam Houston, who led a Texan Army, outnumbered more than two to one by Santa Anna’s Mexican soldados, to an overwhelming victory at San Jacinto has an appropriate quote for Biden:

    “The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free government.”

  • The Admin doesn’t care because no one will report gaffs or attitude to their voters, they are immune to accountability, above what they legislate (mandate), set for life, and having laughs at the expense of their religion, peoples’ concerns, and the integrity of their own party, and last, but not least along with other things, the country they swore to serve. Dressed for success.

  • Michael Collins !!!

    His intelligence war and spy network against Great Britain (not to mention Bloody Sunday itself) was FAR more audacious in its planning and execution.

  • this is so un-newsworthy….big deal and btw Palin said enough idotic things during the campaign to make up for the fact that she’s not the VP.
    they are all idiots…all of them!

  • No, Biden is in a class of idiocy all by himself:

  • I think we agree that in the “audacity” department, killing OBL was not up there in the top 1,000 audacious acts of the past 500 years.

    What were the risks?

    Losing 40 to 50 men each one far more valuable than anyone in the WH. And, more vital to the gangsters: bad press.

    Where does it stand in its benefits for we the people? I doubt it makes the top 1,000.

    FD: The issue is the losers and their ideologies that are wrecking America not about the Alaska Governor who left her state richer than the rest of the country.

  • For my father’s sake I will mention Douglas MacArthur at Inchon.

  • The American people have quite the “audacious” retirement plan for Joe “stand up Chuck!” Biden, come this November.

  • …and btw Palin said enough idotic things during the campaign…
    francodrummer

    Really? If she said so many, you should have been able to name, oh, a half-dozen of those idotic things off the top of your head.

    P.S. Don’t mention “I can see Russia from my house” because Tina Fey said that, not Governor Palin.

The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Jennifer Rubin sent a strong message today.  She wants Mitt Romney to know that she’s got his back every bit as much as Ann Coulter.

Rubin makes a lot of hay over the fact that Rick Santorum never visited Afghanistan, and has not said that he would go to Afghanistan were he the nominee, a promise that Mitt Romney made a few days ago.  Santorum made a pretty compelling case as to why:

And I’m not too sure making the trip Afghanistan is necessarily anything other than what it looks like: a show. And what I’m looking at is trying to, you know, make sure that we successfully win this nomination

Sounds right to me.  There is nothing to be gained for anyone by the candidates flying to Afghanistan for some pr stunt.  But that’s not how Rubin sees it.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

  • Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s tame conservative, is precisely the ideal conservative for the Post. She spends most of her time attacking real conservatives like Santorum on behalf of fake conservative Romney, and her columns are often vacuous and fact allergic. The powers that be at the Washington Post got a real bargain when they hired her: a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

  • She certainly fills the David Brooks role at the Post rather nicely – albeit with about 1/4 of Brooks’ wit.

  • Who is this Jessica Rubin of whom you speak?

    Is this Washington Post something to which to tie your horse and buggie?

  • a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

    You’ve confounded her with Kathleen Parker.

    I believe her principal employment is with Commentary, who are a fairly trenchant crew. I think the problem here is not the striking of poses but an excess of intramural factionalism and the stupidities you find in commentary about the day’s political ephemera (which is why one should not comment much about what one reads in the newspapers).

  • Nah Art, I am very clear on who she is, and she isn’t a conservative:

    “As for his comments on prosecuting abortion doctors, this would, I assume, concern the death penalty in states that impose capital punishment for murder. After all, it would be contrary to his views (that unborn children are people under the Constitution) to decide for criminal law purposes that an unborn child is any less a person, and deserving of less protection, than any other person.

    Moreover, if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right? If she conspired with a doctor to kill a live child, she would not be spared (“otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law”). So what exactly is the rationale — that it would be too outrageous to articulate this legal predicament? Well, that’s where his reasoning leads us.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-adds-fuel-to-the-culture-wars/2012/02/18/gIQA3v1NMR_blog.html

  • She is part of the Commentary crew. For the most part, they are concerned with questions of foreign affairs, aspects of the eduction system, and the doings of the media. Some of the folks from that stable are very uncongenial to social conservatives, and some are not.

    Of course, she is not discussing issues abstracted from political competition. Which is to say she expects the red-headed step-children to vote for her boy in November while submitting to serial displays of disrespect from her (among others). You’re right. Flip her the bird.

  • “if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right?”

    If I’m not mistaken that WAS the common practice when abortion was illegal prior to Roe — it was the doctor, not the woman, who was prosecuted, and who was subject to losing his license to practice medicine. The woman was seen more or less as a second victim of the crime and the doctor as someone willing to exploit her desperation for his own gain.

    But, it’s also my understanding — and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I’m wrong — that abortionists in the pre-Roe era were NOT prosecuted for murder. An illegal abortionist might be prosecuted for manslaughter or negligent homicide or something similar if the WOMAN died as a result of a botched procedure, but performing an illegal abortion was a stand-alone crime in a class by itself. It was not legally a form of murder or homicide.

  • Pingback: The Value of Well-Paid Advisers | The American Catholic

The Land of Lincoln Votes

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

 

By thy rivers gently flowing, Illinois, Illinois,

 O’er thy prairies verdant growing, Illinois, Illinois,

 Comes an echo on the breeze.  

Rustling through the leafy trees,

 and its mellow tones are these, Illinois, Illinois,

 And its mellow tones are these, Illinois.

From a wilderness of prairies, Illinois, Illinois,

Straight thy way and never varies, Illinois, Illinois,

 Till upon the inland sea,

  Stands thy great commercial tree,

 turning all the world to thee, Illinois, Illinois,

 Turning all the world to thee, Illinois.  

When you heard your country calling, Illinois, Illinois,  

Where the shot and shell were falling, Illinois, Illinois,

 When the Southern host withdrew,

 Pitting Gray against the Blue,  

there were none more brave than you, Illinois, Illinois,

 There were none more brave than you, Illinois.

Not without thy wondrous story, Illinois, Illinois,

 Can be writ the nation’s glory, Illinois, Illinois,

 On the record of thy years,

 Abraham Lincoln’s name appears,

 Grant and Logan, and our tears, Illinois, Illinois,

 Grant and Logan, and our tears, Illinois.

 

 

 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to The Land of Lincoln Votes

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy:) The robocalls have come from even lower levels of government than Don has noted. I’ve answered at least one robocall from someone running for our local County Board, for example. Last night was especially bad for robocalls; it seemed one couldn’t go more than 15 minutes (if that) without yet another one. Such a relief when a real person making a non-political call would contact us instead!

  • Your comments about robocalls give me pause. We’re set to kick off the campaigning in Maryland, and of course making phone calls is part of our itinerary. I suppose calls from live human beings are not as annoying as robocalls, but I still worry that it’s overkill.

    As for IL, as is the case with just about all the states, the delegate allotment is proportional, so Santorum should be able to win a fair number of delegates if he takes the more conservative congressional districts.

  • True Paul. I am in the 15th Congressional District and I expect that Santorum will prevail here. That will be doubly sweet for me as we have some local politcos as Romney delegates, including one that I have long nicknamed “THE EMPTY SUIT”, and it will put a smile on my face to see them deprived of their delegate slots!

    As to robocalls Paul I have always hated them. I hang on long enough to hear who it is from before slamming down the receiver. I think when all campaigns are using them, and calling the same household multiple times, it diminishes whatever effectiveness they had when they were a relative novelty and merely serves to exasperate most of the recipients of the calls.

  • Vote early, vote often.

  • Santorum is starting at a disadvantage in Illinois in that he failed to submit names for 10 of the 54 delegates selected tonight.

  • Yep BA that is what happens when you start out as a presidential candidate on less than a shoestring and with apparently a zero chance. It is a tribute to Santorum as a candidate, and to the vast unpopularity of Romney with much of the Republican base, that Santorum is now slugging it out toe to toe with Romney and turning what Romney expected to be a coronation into a real contest.

  • My law partner, whose astuteness apparently exceeds Dave Hartline’s expectations, just emailed me the following: “I spent a few minutes scanning through the exit poll data from Illinois. Romney increased his lead over Santorum in the Catholic vote compared with prior primaries, gaining 53% to 30%. He also won the sub-stratum of Catholic voters that attend service every week, 48-39% (contrary to claims by some in the Santorum camp that Romney doesn’t fare well among practicing Catholics). As expected, Santorum won the Evangelical vote, 39% to 48%, but that is a lower margin than elsewhere. Generally speaking, Romney won every possible demographic except unmarried males between 40-49, those with no education beyond high school, and those who make less than 30k. Interestingly, it looks like Santorum and Hillary share much of the same base, just in different parties.”

  • We’re talking ILLINOIS here, right? My bet would be that every demographic in Illinois – the state which, along with Massachusetts, showed a remarkable immunity to the GOP gains in 2010 – is further to the left than similar demographics in every other state. I would bet that practicing Catholics and Evangelicals in Illinois, though perhaps conservative, are less so than practicing Catholics and Evangelicals in other states.

    So, those figures quoted above give me absolutely no pause whatsoever. Illinois is arguably one of the two most liberal states in the union. It gave us Obama. It would be tragic if conservatives and Republicans allowed yesterday’s results in a liberal state that Republicans have absolutely NO CHANCE of EVER winning in a presidential election to give us Obama Lite (aka Romney), as well.

  • Jay nailed it–I mentioned on another blog this morning that “it appears Mitt Romney has carried yet another state he has no chance of winning in November.”

  • Actually Jay in 2010 the Republicans in Illinois picked up four congressional seats, made gains in the legislature and almost took the governorship. Illinois is not Massachusetts and given a well funded GOP candidate, it is a pretty 50-50 state at the polls, except at the presidential level where the Democrats have dominated since 1992. Obama in 2004 replaced a conservative Republican senator who decided not to run for re-election. The main problem in Illinois is that terrible corruption runs rampant throughout both parties, and that conviction politicians of a conservative bent have difficulty gaining any support from the GOP establishment.

  • In regard to Santorum’s loss I attribute it almost entirely to Romney’s overwhelming spending advantage, lockstep support of Romney by the corrupt GOP establishment in this state, and the fact that Santorum did not spend enough time in the state to start a grass roots movement to compensate for those disadvantages.

  • “…and the fact that Santorum did not spend enough time in the state to start a grass roots movement to compensate for those disadvantages.”

    That’s an excellent point. I didn’t get Santorum’s decision to go to PR, of all places. His campaign discipline still needs some work.

  • Jay,
    Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of my native state. That said, Dave and others have been pretty emphatic in pointing out that the GOP base in IL is quite conservative and that this would be demonstrated by success for Santorum in the primary. My take is that Dave et al are right that the IL GOP base is plenty conservative notwithstanding the liberal bias of the state, but they were wrong in assuming that that this would translate into success for Santorum. Romney’s difficulties are concentrated in a few key demographics, but these demographics are not directly related to one’s degree of conservatism.

  • “Actually Jay in 2010 the Republicans in Illinois picked up four congressional seats, made gains in the legislature and almost took the governorship.”

    I stand corrected then, Don, on Ilinois’ immunity to the GOP tide in 2010. I suppose I was basing my assessment almost entirely on the state’s electing a hardcore anti-Catholic “Catholic” leftist Democrat as Governor even after the whole Blago imbroglio.

  • I can tell you exactly how that occurred Jay. Personal Pac, a pro-abort lobbying group run by a personal nemesis of mine from college named Terry Cosgrove, ran endless internet ads attacking pro-life Bill Brady. Brady made the mistake of ignoring them, due to almost every poll showing him winning comfortably. Bad mistake. It stampeded enough suburban women into voting for the worst governor in the country, Quinn, who is now immensely unpopular in the State due to the tax hike he rammed through the legislature in a midnight session. Quinn’s margin of victory was 0.9%.

Green Jobs Answer Man!

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Right you are Green Jobs Answer Man!  In regard to Wind Energy, take away the tax subsidies and the entire industry would die:

Let’s take it back to 1992. The parents are watching Murphy Brown, the kids are watching Full House, and people are rockin’ out to Nirvana and Dr. Dre. (Some things never change.) And wind was ready to usher in a new era of energy production. In fact, Matthew Wald wrote in a 1992 New York Times article, “A New Era for Windmill Power,” that “striking improvements in technology, the commercial use of these windmills, or wind turbines as the builders call them, has shown that in addition to being pollution free, they can now compete with fossil fuels in the cost of producing electricity.”

He went on: “Kingsley E. Chatton, president of U.S. Windpower, which operates 22 new-generation windmills here, said the economics of wind power was at the point where it ‘will compete with fossil fuel.’ Others agree.”

Twenty years of subsidies later, wind still only provides a paltry 2.3 percent of America’s electricity in 2010, and it still needs subsidies.

Jim Nelson, CEO of Solar3D, argues that government subsidies are obstructing innovation in the renewable-energy sector:

Operating subsidies, or installation subsidies, helps get clean energy sources installed but the problem is that current technology is not economically competitive. Everything we do needs to be done with a view toward global competitiveness. Unfortunately, because current technology is not economical relative to alternatives, it does not promote our competitiveness.

The problem is that subsidies promote technological malaise. They take away the incentive to innovate and lower cost by promoting business models geared more toward gaining favor with politicians than on technological innovation. The result is that subsidized industries quickly become dependent on government. At that point, long-term competitiveness becomes secondary to near-term survival, which is generally conditioned on more handouts.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Green Jobs Answer Man!

Don’t Wait By the Phone

Monday, March 19, AD 2012

 

 

Bristol Palin demonstrates that the political gene may run in the blood of the Palin women.  On her blog she posted this open letter to President Obama:

You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next.  You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha.  After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture.  I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung.  Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family.  He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”  (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Don’t Wait By the Phone

  • There will come a day when all the talking and opinionating will be done and over with. Revelation 20:11-15

    11* Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15* and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

  • I thought Rush’s apology should have gone somenting like:

    “I apologize for taking you at your word.”

  • If this letter were written by someone on the left I doubt that it would have been so respectful. The girl was brought up well and has respect for those she disagrees with. This is THE THE THE reason I was never able to stay with the left for so long. IMHO they spew hate…(Bill Maher, Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, et. al.) and the logic of most of the arguments comes mainly from emotion and not well reasoned logic.

  • ‘Eating words has never given me indigestion.’ – Winston Churchill. Is there one human being on earth who has never regretted saying something? Rush has been on the air 23 years and what’s remarkable is that his one verbal faux pas — mild in my estimation and not entirely off the mark — is so conspicuous. Bill Maher and other leftist idiots are serial abusers of the language and, because of this, are rarely taken to task.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it

Secretary Sebelius and “Document Dump Friday”: Protecting religious liberty?

Monday, March 19, AD 2012

In Washington, DC, the pattern for just about any administration is to “dump” bad news late on Friday afternoon.  The ostensible goal is to draw as little attention as possible to those news items so they “die” over the weekend without notice.

 

 

Last Friday proved no different with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius dumping the news that under the Obamacare healthcare reforms, the healthcare insurance plans that most colleges offer will now have to include contraceptive coverage at no cost.

Although the new HHS regulation apply to religious and secular colleges, HHS allows religious institutions one additional year to comply.

There is one loophole: Colleges offering students self-insured healthcare plans—in which colleges pool students’ premiums to pay for healthcare services rather than purchasing an insurance policy—will not be required to cover contraception.  HHS estimates that ~200k students (of an estimated 1M to 3M students) rely on these self-insured plans.

This loophole leaves President Obama’s so-called “compromise” intact: The healthcare insurer—not the institution—will pay for the “free” coverage which must be included in all policies.

Some religious colleges, like Belmont Abbey College, have sued the government, arguing in part that Church teaching forbids premarital sex as well as artificial forms of birth control.  They ask: How can these institutions uphold Church teaching and offer students contraception free of charge?

The Motley Monk would note that this “duplicity” argument actually matters little to this administration.  Remember when President Obama was lobbying hard for the passage of his healthcare “reforms” and guaranteed that the “conscience clause” exemption would be respected?

Respecting religious liberty?

 

However, Ms. Sebelieus did her best to protect her boss on Friday while announcing the new regulation when she said:

The President’s policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women.  Today’s announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment.

Let’s hope the United States Supreme Court has greater respect for conscience and religious liberty next week when oral arguments about the constitutionality of the Obamacare “individual mandate” are heard.

 

Let the discussion begin…

 

 

To read the HHS press release, click on the following link:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/03/20120316g.html

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/

 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Secretary Sebelius and “Document Dump Friday”: Protecting religious liberty?

  • “In Washington, DC, the pattern for just about any administration is to “dump” bad news late on Friday afternoon. The ostensible goal is to draw as little attention as possible to those news items so they “die” over the weekend without notice.”

    A hangover from the days when most people paid little attention to the news on television or in the papers on weekends. In the days of the internet it makes no sense and merely red flags the documents dumped. What this Friday document dump does indicate is that the Obama administration understands that, contrary to their expectations, the HHS Mandate is toxic for Obama politically. He understands that fact, even if his more crazed devotees do not.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ThePulp.it
  • Well, contaception is not the issue, the issue is What Would Jesus Do, and What Would Jesus Say? Is it not the teachings of Christ to Love yourself? And if this is the Teachings of Christ, how can I teach how to love thyself when the impetus is on the wanton destruction of one’s personal integrity? Contraception is a complicated situation in the Catholic Religion, but this Administration is in the processs of telling all that you can forget the Teachings of the Church and live according to satan. Wake up Folks, you need to find the path back to GOD, for if you do not, you will destroy the Country You and I love…. May GOD Bless US.

Stanley Fish, CS Lewis and Might Makes Right

Monday, March 19, AD 2012

 

Stanley Fish, probably the most noted American literary theorist of our time, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on March 12, 2012 called Two Cheers for Double Standards in which he demonstrated how deeply wed he and other members of the Left in this country are to the Orwell axiom from Animal Farm that some animals are more equal than others:

If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal — that is, non-formal — perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.

I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Stanley Fish, CS Lewis and Might Makes Right

  • “Professor Fish says that he can live with the non-standard that might makes right. If that is going to be how our political and social discourse is now to be carried out, I am very afraid that a great many Americans will eventually not be able to remain alive under such a rule of conduct.”

    That’s why there is a Second Amendment. You may not like my saying this, but liberal leftists really do understand only one thing, and it’s the same thing that Islamic fascists understand: overwhelming force. To both of them, might makes right, and it always has, and it always will.

    I hope that in November these people can be thrown out peaceably.

  • “That’s why there is a Second Amendment.”

    Exactly what I was thinking, Paul.

  • Without an appeal and obedience to a higher Law, might does make right and sometimes we cannot avoid that. We are to turn the other cheek, but that does not mean that we are to be doormats. Of course, you should always clean your own house first. For us, that means it is time for an Inquisition within the Church and then the rest of the country. We have to expel those who do not adhere to the American Creed as expressed in the language of Natural Law in our Declaration of Independence. I know this seems extreme; however, the chasm of polarization in this country cannot be bridged. It will eventually come down to the will to power in a mobocracy, or a vigorous return to the Rule of Law in our Republic. I see no benefit in waiting.

    I am not advocating violence, but if those who ascribe to the doctrine of power will eventually take us there. We either decline into chaos-tyranny-totalitarianism or restore the Republic. The tolerant ‘liberal’ mindset cannot tolerate lack of power – it has to be taken from them.

    Viva Christo Rey!

  • “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

    Abraham Lincoln

  • There are no coincidences. In the previous post, the pro-death logic that we exist only to serve our masters was exposed. Now, it is revealed that we exist only to serve those powerful enough to maintain that mastery.

    “The only real power comes out of a long rifle.”
    Joseph Stalin

    If this is what they want, then let them come.

  • Very glad that you have raised this issue through the Fish op-ed. I’ve noticed for a good long time, having to exist professionally in the liberal teapot, that a ‘letist’ is almost instantly recognizable as they most often insist on impolitely discussing their ‘religion’ before all else. In other words, before even, or within seconds of, any exchange of pleasantries, one will hear utterances as if being read off of a “Fishwrapper” screed. The second thing immediately noticeable is that culturally there is no connection, not in language (post modernists are at war with reason and faith), ideas, even culture. Even once harmless and unoffensive discussions about sports or weather are fertile for leftist diatribe.

  • cthemfly25: They are possessed.

  • All mankind is the intellectual property of our Creator, as emblazoned in our founding principles. Anybody, from president to pastor, who refutes out founding principles has cast himself into an abyss. Let him be anathema.

  • Pingback: Don’t Wait By the Phone | The American Catholic
  • Paul P @ 0555 (God Bless Gen’l Robin Olds and the “Triple Nickel!”)

    Nail on Head!

    The motivation for lying liberals’ and repressive progressives’ Seventy Years War on The Second Amendment was to make it so we could not shoot back when they came for us.

    God made us. Sam Colt made us equal.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MID-DAY EXTRA | ThePulp.it