A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

Sunday, March 18, AD 2012

 

 

Michael Moriarty as SS Sturmbannfuhrer (Major) Erik Dorf, in the riveting miniseries Holocaust (1978), attempts at 5:26 in the video above to convince the incredulous SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler that rather than concealing the crimes of the Holocaust the SS should stand behind them and and convince the world that the genocide of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable” by the “master race” was right and just.  He anounces to the astounded SS officers, Dorff being an attorney in civilian life, that “A case can be made for Auschwitz!”  He is speaking to mass murderers and monsters, but even they are repulsed by what he says.  They understand deep down that they have been involved in an unspeakable crime for which no excuse, no argument can possibly be made.

Would that most pro-aborts would have some such shred of moral sensibility remaining.  Alas, I am afraid that this statement of Jessica Delbalzo is much more common among pro-aborts, even if they rarely are this forthright:

I love abortion.  I don’t accept it.  I don’t view it as a necessary evil.  I embrace it.  I donate to abortion funds.  I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services.  I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom.  I love abortion.

Continue reading...

57 Responses to A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

  • “We hold these truth to be self-evidnent that all men are created equal” created, not born equal. To be pro-abortion is to be against the laws of nature and nature’s God. To be pro-abortion is to be against the will of God, To be pro-abortion is to be pro-atheism and against all that America stands for. This is why America won WWII. God was with us. And relying on Divine Providence, God is still with us.

  • Well they certainly are trying their hardest to make their case:

    http://goo.gl/ym7sB

    If society retains any moral outrage fanatical pro-aborts may just invoke it by pushing their godlessness too far.

  • I think two deficits in such persons’ consciences are humility and objective truth.

    Twenty-first century enablers of mass evil employ social justice as justification for all sin.

  • Another moral outrage report from Gateway Pundit:

    “Disgusting! Obama Administration Approves Using Aborted Fetal Brains in Lab Experimentation”

    It’s okay! Obama is Social Justice.

  • Another video could have made the point better. Moriarty’s words are a none too subtle smear job against Christianity and the West. I’d like to know which high churchmen called for a Judenrein Europe involving the mass destruction of Jews as opposed to their conversion. There is a class of propaganda inspired by Communists and their fellow travellers that persistently tries to involve the religion of Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church in the Nazi mass murder of Jews. This serves the double purpose of obscuring the heinous crimes of the Communists which over the years have swallowed more victims than the Nazis ever did. The Germans are an efficient and highly capable people; when led by an amoral technocratic elite it takes only a few men to organise the killings of vast numbers of victims.

  • I disagree Ivan. I think this is the perfect video for the point that I was making. Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously except as desperate attempts at self justification by a man lost in an abyss of evil that he has allowed his ambition to lead him into. Moriarty’s character is shown to be especially despicable in the miniseries due to his knowledge that what he is doing his evil and his unavailing efforts to convince himself otherwise. This point is driven home after his capture by the Americans at the end of the war. He commits suicide after an American interrogation officer shows him the pictures of some kids murdered at a concentration camp and tells him that if it was up to him he would allow any surviving parents of those kids to deal with him. As a side note Michael Moriarty has been an outspoken critic of abortion. No, the video makes my point well in this post, about evil and those who attempt to convince themselves that blackest evil is actually shining good.

  • I am reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg right now for the first time and every page has me saying, “oh my God!!” I came to a part where liberalism/progressivism is a fight against boredness(?) a trial of anything that if it works, do it!; religion is dammed for science. I can see where much of today’s ills are coming from. I trying to take this book with a grain of salt but my goodness this has been going on since Mussolini and the very late 1800s into the early 1900s and much is seen today. Mr Goldberg seems to take the argument very even handedly as well. Someone tell me I am wrong for believing this book.

  • Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously… – that is the higher critic speaking Donald. It does make your point.

  • There is a reason why God ordered the children of Israel to spare none of the Canaanites. Liberals like Jessica Delbalzo will never give up abortion – murdering babies. They will force the war on us the born in the same way that they have on the unborn, and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty, equality and fraternity.

  • Stranglehold of PC-ness.

  • The sadness and shattered-ness of this person; self-wounded – intellectualizing his soul’s conflict; searching for justification and redemption – despite his real inner knowing that he has been duped and has sinned tragically. I thought of Viktor Frankel’s Search for Meaning– from this side now.
    A very poignant scene as he walks away, still struggling, hearing the discussion behind him. And for me– also hearing that continuing conversation and knowing that today that same/different discussion/obfuscation still goes on.

    Placed side by side with the abortion lover and the infanticide “ethicists makes me feel almost helpless.

    I also hated to hear the reference to highly placed churchmen– afraid it is true– and at the same time afraid that it is yet another smearing strike at the Church; like all smears based on some truth.

  • And just recently two “ethicists” are trying to recommend “after-birth abortion” for parents who don’t care for what came forth. A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. The word had meant “miscarriage” — think of an abortive flight. People wanted to “sell” the idea of abortion by calling it “induced abortion,” meaning “induced miscarriage,” when of course it was no such thing.

  • Go check out her facebook page, she has her picture up of her and someone dressed up as the devil. Very fitting…

    https://www.facebook.com/antiadoptiongrrl

  • Tony’s comment made me think of this:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2189142/posts
    The Name Game (linguistic deception and rational judgment)

    a case can be made for anything people want to believe

  • Tony Esolen, ” A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. ”
    The obliteration of a language is an obliteration of a people. A spontaneous abortion is a natural miscarriage, nature making its selection. An induced abortion is homicide.
    Hitler could not explain why the German race was superior, so he made up Ice Cosmology. The Germans came as frozen embryos from outer space by a space ship circling the planet. Stalin said:”killing one man is homicide. Killing 30,000,000 is a statistic.” In America, aborting 50,000,000 is a “political point of view”.

  • and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty

    By some creative misunderstanding this anecdote has become legendary:

    The impact of the French Revolution? “Too early to say.” – Zhou En Lai.

    We now have in the WH a man who has no problems with the murder of a baby who survived a botched abortion. Imagine the little fellow’s plight. His mother hates him. He has no father or uncles to protect him. Alone, the instruments of the state are deployed against his tiny frame. The doctors want to get over it and go on to their dinners and yet he refuses to die. And along comes the “constituitional expert” Obama like something out of Dean Swift, insisting that nonetheless the edicts of the Schreibtischtaters be carried out. Such are the benefits of a Harvard education. As the Lenten lamentations have it: if they do this when the wood is green, what will they do to dry wood?

  • Even though my chin was on my chest the whole time, I read it. I even strayed into the comments section.

    There, she says this, and it is a quote:

    “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body, so there is nothing for me to mind seeing. Unless, of course, you want people to be forced into donating their spare organs…”

    To reiterate: “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body”

    This gives us a valuable insight to the pro-death thought process:

    A) Since the first nine months of life are by nature the very act of one depending upon the body of another for life support, according to this logic, nobody has the right to be born.

    B) If nobody has the right to be born, those of us who were lucky enough to not be killed before birth exist only through either the arbitrary and subjective beneficence of somebody else, or because we are bred to a pre-determined utility. So . . .

    C) If our very creation is based solely on the beneficence or utilitarian purposes of another then our continued existence is at that same arbitrary and subjective beneficence or purpose. We then have no individual, natural rights at all, only those abilities granted or assigned by our progenitors. Things like liberty, self-determination the right to life itself are myths.

    D) If there are no natural rights at all, then, society is simply “survival of the fittest.” Control of society then devolves to those who can, through brute force, gain enough power to hold it.

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

    Sieg Heil.

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin.

    The evil there cannot be any more obvious. We are dealing with Satan himself.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WAR | ThePulp.it
  • All I can say is : Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
    St. Michael, defend us in battle!

  • Donald McClarey: Your response to Ivan is perfect, defining the people. My thoughts follow.
    Jesus Christ said from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”When Michael Moriarity, as Erik Dorf gives his impassioned, albeit evil speech, about Auschwitz, he alludes to the Jews as “Christ killers” and to the Hitlerites as having “saved” Christianity and civilization for the world as though world domination were not at the core of Nazism. His rant is contradicted by the fact that all priests were summarily sent to Aucshwitz, where Maximillian Kolbe died, or were executed outright. Eric Bolt’s character exhibits the madness of the Madman, Hitler, himself. Christ’s plea for forgiveness from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” is not in their heart. They are the most miserable and vile of creatures. Saving the planet by murdering everybody who disagrees with them, pretending to be the JUSTICE of God, and yet, I am informed that the Soviets were more cruel, more savage. It is no wonder that Bolt committed suicide, as the Nazi did not accept the forgiveness of Jesus. Oberammergau is the village in Bavaria that was saved from the plague in the middle ages by the people promising that their whole economy would be based on promoting Christianity, most notably the Passion Play, and other art. After two hundred years, they became secularized and abandoned the Passion Play and the plague returned. The people resumed the Passion Play and the plague abated. Even now, the Jews content that the Passion Play depicts them as “Christ killers” but the fact is that it is what it is. Every human being, except the Immaculate Conception, bears the guilt and the glory of being saved by Christ’s crucifixion. The lesson is that without Christ’s forgiveness and the cross, civilization and humanity is not redeemed.

  • WKAiken:
    “nobody has the right to be born”. All men come into existence through God’s generosity. God is love. All creation and especially man exists through God’s love. God is existence. God is being. If nobody has the right to be born, then nobody has the right to human existence. The newly begotten sovereign being in the womb creates motherhood for the woman, grandmotherhood for her mother, great grandmotherthood for her grandmother and further. It is the same for the father to great grandfatherhood. HOPE AND CHANGE is what happens when a woman conceives and CHANGES into a mother. If this woman does not believe in human existence as being worthwhile she ought to give it back.
    The immortal, rational soul of the human being lives forever. The human being is composed of a rational, immortal soul and a human body. To redefine the human being as having no rational, immortal soul is a lie. Eternal consequences for an action of homicide will be taken into account by nature and nature’s God. If this evil person refuses to admit our Creator, then let her return her existence. Since she denies our Creator and our endowed unalienable right to life, she forfeits her sovereign personhood, her citizenship and her rational, immortal soul. The rational, immortal soul is the essence of humanity.

    “we are bred to a pre-determined utility” The compelling interest of the state in the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb is that the person constitutes the state by his being, being the standard of Justice for the state, perfect Justice, perfect innocence, virginity and virtue. The rational, immortal soul brought into existence by the will of God and by the procreative action of his human parents renews the face of the earth and the state. Unless this evil individual is going to live forever, the state needs the new human being to continue the state. Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator. How can the state prevent reason? How can the state prevent God? “The fool says in his heart: There is no God”

    Thank you for the quote for Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin. Why would anybody in his right mind call the human race “ENEMIES”? ENEMIES

  • If human existence is a gift from God, then let everyone make himself useful. The act of free will in charity will set you free.

  • Mary – I share your incredulity. The idea that such concepts are now actually being put forward by some people makes me fear the worst is coming.

    Your arguments are extremely well-reasoned. I find it ironic that, in the logic which the pro-death crowd puts forward, they would also surrender their own so-called “right to privacy.” I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.

    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.” Perfect.

  • You have to wonder if this women loves her child (the one she allowed to live) at all or if she is so narcissistic that the child exists as a vessel to spew her venom. Can you imagine looking at your living child and not at least wondering about the child you destroyed.

    I have two beautiful children that mean everything to me and I cannot look at them and think what if they had never been born? How much I would have missed…

    I pray her daughter realizes the evilness in her mother by denying her the love of her sibling.

  • I call BS on her story about her two-year old being disgusted with the idea of not having the ability to abort. I guarantee that is made up. I have two younger children who are naturally horrified/confused as to why someone would abort. Part of this is that we share with them ultrasounds of them (from their baby book) and their siblings and they recognize the obvious- I/sister was in mommy’s tummy. The idea that a two-year old would accept that the “fetus” is not a baby is silly. My guess is that she didn’t know what her mom meant when she switched from “Baby” when it was about having one versus “fetus” when she was talking about getting rid of it.

  • A case may be made here for Michael Moriarity playing Erik Dorf and Lila Rose playing a pimp.

  • I agree with david. Tell any two-year old that Mommy has a baby in her tummy and she is going to kill it, and you will see a classic example of natural law (i.e., law written on the hearts of men) at work. Call the baby a fetus you might get a different reaction, but only because they don’t understand what a fetus is.

  • WK Aiken: “I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.
    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.”
    The reality of logical fallacy is if the individual has not surendered her existence back to our Creator and by an act of free will annihilated herself, she has at some point consented to her existence. The person cannot deny our Creator and assume her existence without contradicting herself. If the person exists, she cannot deny other persons who exist. If the person exists, she cannot deny the existence of God and other persons who exist.

  • This post is disturbing for two reasons, both of which have to do with the comparison of the Holocaust and abortion. First, you’ve chosen to use (as either a credible source or a means of drawing in readers) one of the most roundly dismissed and historically problematic Holocaust films ever produced. I encourage further reading about the mini-series “Holocaust.” It’s widely and rightly viewed as sensationalistic, extremely poorly researched, and an unethical and poorly executed mixing of fact and fiction (you’ve described Moriarty’s character here in the comments section, and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation). I recommend thinking twice before referring to this mini-series at all, let alone in conjunction with abortion.

    Second, I beg of you and all others to stop comparing the Holocaust to anything, let alone abortion. No one need shy away from their views of abortion in order to refrain from invoking the Holocaust to incite outrage. It’s absolutely unnecessary to connect the two and what’s worse, it’s fallacious. Using the Holocaust and its 11 million victims to make a point about anything only leads to inaccurate comparisons. Abortion may well be a horrifying epidemic. But it is *not* the Holocaust, or “a holocaust,” nor should one disturb the memories of millions to make a rhetorical point.

  • We have a holocaust of 54 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade just in these United States because men and women want to get their genitals titillated without taking responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. World wide, the figure is surely much larger. So perhaps the comparison with the WW II holocaust of 11 million people murdered by the Nazis is unfair. Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers.

  • “and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation).”

    Disagree Regina. The SS made a point of recruiting young professionals like the character portrayed by Moriarty. As depicted in the miniseries the SS took extreme pains to get rid of evidence of the Holocaust as best they could, with SS and other Nazi officials continuing to deny that the Holocaust occurred at all at the Nuremberg trials.

    In regard to the Holocaust and abortion, the comparison was between the attitude of the SS officials to the idea that there could be a public defense of the Holocaust and the pro-abort nutcase proclaiming her love of abortion. As for body counts, some 55 million kids have been done to death through abortion in this country. I pray that there may come a day when those deaths will cease. Until that time arrives I intend to draw whatever comparisons I deem relevant in pointing out the great evil that is celebrated as a constitutional right in our country.

  • The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable. Even if one wanted to believe that there are multiple holocausts, the historical (even Biblical) use of this term refers to a sacrificial death by fire. This makes some sense in terms of a place like Auschwitz. It does not make sense in terms of abortion. Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts. It’s their belief that there is only one, and it’s the capital “H” Holocaust, not the/a holocaust. I’m simply advocating that another term be located to describe the atrocity of abortion. That shouldn’t be too difficult, should it?

    Additionally, the claim that “Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers (sic)” only further indicates an ignorance of history itself and to be frank, it’s a very ugly dismissal of the pain endured by those destroyed during the Holocaust.

  • What liberals do and say is an ugly dismissal of the pain liberals visit on the unborn as they dismember and vacuum out the remains from the womb, as they puncture skulls with scissors, as they throw the corpses in the trash.

    Godless liberalism. Godless, putrid, rancid liberalism. Worse than their Nazi and Communist forebearers. Crying the same as Robespierre: liberty, equality, fraternity. The only reason why someone cannot understand this is because that someone is liberal him/herself and believes in the right to chose to murder.

  • You do understand that it needn’t be *my* claim that Moriarty’s character is a ridiculous construction, yes? He’s an impossible fabrication and this is a claim that’s been verified by historian after historian. What more can be expected when not even one survivor was consulted during the filming of this mini-series… The notion that this SS officer would commit suicide and therefore acknowledge his own lack of morality is beyond dubious. Again, no need to disagree with me. I’m simply pointing out that a comparison built on factual inconsistencies is never going to be fruitful.

    I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point. Those who claim that the Holocaust was unique don’t use body counts as the basis for their claims. There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.

  • Scroll down the web page here at Priests for Life to find links to pictures of babies torn apart by abortion – not for the faint of heart.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx

    This is what Hitler did. This is what Obama does. This is what Nazis diod. This is what liberal Democrats do.

  • “I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point.”

    Until it’s your body! Or my body! You don’t get it, or worse, you refuse to get it.

  • “The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable.”

    Nor would it be in regard to the Holocaust if taken literally Regina, since I doubt if the Nazis were planning all of this as a burnt offering to God, no more than the abortionists who burn the bodies of their victims or simply dump them with garbage. In another sense, I guess it could fit both cases as the sacrifice is made to false Gods like racial purity, convenience, etc.

    “Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts.”

    Sadly Regina, killing innocent people in huge lots has not been rare in human history as the last century amply demonstrated. The Holocaust was a crime that cried out to God for justice. Alas, such crimes are many in the chronicles of human barbarity.

    “He’s an impossible fabrication”
    I would direct your attention Regina to Kurt Gerstein.

    http://www.auschwitz.dk/gerstein.htm

    “There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.”

    The claim that the Holocaust is unique Regina is a moral claim not a historical one. For a good overview on the subject I would suggest that you read “Is the Holocaust Unique?”

    http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Unique-Perspectives-Comparative-Genocide/dp/0813326427

  • Paul, it’s clear that you’re impassioned. I can respect that. I can’t respect multiple ad hominem attacks. I’m only trying to strengthen a pro-life argument by stripping it of problematic fallacies. I’m sorry that you instead see this as some sort of personal deficiency or decision to champion evil. I just can’t engage further with your claims. I can only suggest that you read my comments free of the assumption that I’m a “Godless liberal.” Hopefully you’ll recognize a different motive in them. Be well and God bless.

  • Dial it back Paul. Regina and I are having a reasonable debate and there is no need to attack her.

  • Donald, I have to smile in response to your latest post. Yes, I’ve read Rosenbaum’s book. In response, I’d suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated. I didn’t mean to initiate a discussion about whether the Holocaust is or isn’t unique. There has been a decades-long debate on that subject that involves far savvier voices than my own, all of whom present an incredible range of intriguing responses. My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association. Surely, one needn’t invoke a separate tragedy to emphasize the tragedy that is abortion.

    I can’t tell — are you claiming that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers? Look to an excellent review of “Holocaust” in Wiesel’s And the Sea Is Never Full for more on the ridiculousness of Erik Dorf.

  • “suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated.”

    Read it and found it unconvincing.

    “My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association.”

    Not difficult at all, but I simply disagree that historically the Holocaust is sui generis.

    “that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers?”

    No Regina, and you knew that even before you typed that query out. You postulated that a conscience stricken SS officer was an impossible fabrication and I disproved your assertion.

  • Very interesting! I’m attending a conference in two months that will explore Rosenfeld’s book in more depth. I do find it to be persuasive, personally. I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying (if you don’t already), given your review of Rosenfeld.

    Erik Dorf is an impossible fabrication for many reasons, inclusive of the general presentation that an SS officer (especially one who was responsible for so much — far too much to be believable) might normally have an attack of conscience. The review by Wiesel goes into great detail regarding Dorf’s historical inaccuracy. I happily grant you that there were exceptions to this rule. I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule.

    In my experience, it’s rare that a blogger will take as much time as you have to respond to a reader. Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.

  • “I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying”

    Not dissatisfying, merely different from my own. Considering Wiesel’s horrific personal experiences in the Holocaust I can readily understand his position and if I went through what he did I would probably share it.

    “I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule”.
    That is not my contention. Most SS officers were well educated, cultured and, from all external evidence, conscienceless killers.

    “Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.”

    Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.

  • Sorry, Donald. I should know better than to type when I am angry. Apologies to Regina, too. I still maintain, however, that there is no essential difference between the past Holocaust that the Nazis perpetrated and the current Holocaust that the liberal progressives are perpetrating, except that today’s numbers of those murdered are far, far greater. Yet the photographs of human misery and suffering – whether a dismembered unborn child thrown in the trash heap, or a Jewish prisoner victimized by surgical torture and starvation – are all the same.

  • Censorship and misdirection department.

    We little people can’t use the holocaust as a metaphor for abortion because our rulers have declared abortion is a human right.

    Even worse, we mere Catholics would trivialize 70 year-old mass murders.

    Irony department. I never read any holocaust books. But, I know that if it wasn’t for my father (RIP) and all my uncles (RIP), they would not be here telling you what you can’t write. Irony.

  • It is indeed accurate to say that most SS officers were extremely well educated, and also that in spite of their educations, they routinely made immoral choices. They just didn’t normally acknowledge that what they were doing *was* immoral. While Dorf does this, it doesn’t strike me as acceptable to present as the average experience. Ultimately, since most “pro-choice” people also don’t acknowledge the immorality of their beliefs and actions, I wonder anew about referencing this series.

    “Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.” Agreed. Though it’s a discussion of unimaginable horror, I thank you for the dialogue.

  • Regina,
    I don’t think either the film or Don ever suggested that the Moriarty character somehow was presenting the “average experience” of an SS officer. What you seem to be saying is that exceptional experiences are implausible even if they really occur, which strikes me as untenable. And I agree with Don and others that the proposition that the Holocaust’s massive cruelty was so exceptional in human history that it alone can warrant the term is grounded in something other than fact. While a case can be made that use of the term to describe mass murder of the unborn shows insensitivity to our memory of the mass murder of the Jews, one can also make the case that such a proposition is based on the assumption that the former is not as horrible as the latter, which I doubt can withstand scrutiny.

  • The enemy has many names. Each has a connotation, but all have the same underlying essence. Evil is evil. Debating the shades of murder makes none any more palatable or relevant.

    Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the battle. Be our protection against the malice and snares of the Devil. We humbly beseech God to command him. And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the powers of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

  • In functional terms the various Holocaust remembrances serve mainly as props for the liberal religion. So that, one can have all manner of recall in Europe but no one is supposed to notice that it is overwhelmingly the Muslims who make life a misery for the Jews there. This is a desirable state of affairs for the liberals and the tranzi set. As on the one hand the Europeans are prevented from taking effective action to secure their borders and adherence to their laws on the grounds that it is racist to do so, and on the other hand it is so far proved an effective tool to stymie any attempts by the Right to appeal to the nationalism of the Europeans to put their interests first. East Europeans have handled this naked attempt at mind-control better than the West, but there is no telling how long they can hold out in the face of well financed propaganda from the EU and Soros types.

    Now it seems to me that if the Holocaust is to be held in the same unapproachable light as Catholics are to hold the Eucharist, then at the minimum it behooves those who speak on its behalf to see to it, that it is not used to further partisan ends. But this is not what we see. No Catholic is allowed by mealy-mouthed rabbis to compare the worldwide plague of abortion to the holocaust, yet homosexuals get a pass to invoke its memory to further their agenda, forgetting that homosexuals such as Ernst Roehm were well represented in the Nazi Party. A thinking man cannot allow such blatant double standards to pass muster. Further, there was only one name that was worthy of blasphemy in the West and that is the Holy Trinity and its Persons. Blasphemy is passe now; why should the rest of us now replace the Trinity with the holocaust or the superstitions of the moment. I read the “Gulag Archipelago” when it can out in translation in the 70s and early 80s. Nothing that men are capable of has surprised me since. The Holocaust is neither unique nor unprecedented in scope or method then or in more recent times. There were the horrors perpetrated by King Leopold in Congo, the Armenian massacres, the millions who perished in the martyrdom of Tsarist Russia at the hands of the Communists many of them not incidentally Jews, the Ukrainian Holdomor, the mass induced starvations in Maoist China and the depredations of the Khmer Rouge. The perpetrators of all these genocides have by and large all gotten away with it. Kaganovitch, Molotov, Mao, Pol Pot and almost all their lieutenants all died in their sleep with little comment from the guardians of Holocaust memory. Yet no effort is spared to root out every last octogenarian Nazi holed out in some basement in Canada or Michigan. The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.

  • “The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.”

    Well Ivan it has a great deal significance to me, and I regret to say that I do not have a familial relationship to Christ. As for God being on the side of the bigger artillery, I think that is probably a bitter jest for Hitler and Stalin to ponder in Hell.

  • But you are adopted into the family, Donald.

    Romans 8:15

    For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

  • True Paul, and it is also true what Saint Ignatius Loyola said when advised that one of the members of his order had Jewish blood. “How wonderful for him to be related to Our Lord and His mother!”

  • The similarity between the Jews in the Holocaust and the unborn in the abotion holocaust, is that these persons were denied acknowledgement of their sovereign personhood. Deny the humanity of the person and everything becomes legal. Dorf’s argument was predicated on the propaganda that the Jews were not persons deserving of life. Hitler did his share of abortions: “Life not worthy of Life” General George Patton, shall I say beloved Gen. George Patton told his men going into battle: “Kill them with kindness”. Patton acknowledged the sovereign personhood of the enemy combatant and that of his own men. Grant and Lee respected the humanity of the other. You may not want to go back to Alexander the Great, but here too, was another leader who acknowledged his men as persons and respected them. Obama will not recognize and acknowledge the human person as being a child of God. Somewhere, oh, somewhere in the Old Testament, God calls man “lesser gods” small “g” I am still searching for the quote but if God is our Father, then, we, his children whom He has adopted are “lesser gods” aka sovereign persons. We are God’s INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Only our Creator has a copyright, a patent on the human being ” I AM.” (If man is not a person, he cannot be an animal. Animals are a different species. Man is homosapiens: Man of Wisdom)

  • WK Aiken: Will you be so kind as to explain to me what the picture is. I see a white bunny rabbit getting his teeth brushed.

  • I regret the callousness of my remark Donald. Thank you for your patience. Of course God has the last word: Stalin’s “How many divisions does the Pope have?” is well a known cynical quip. The steadfast Eugenio Pacelli’s reply “Tell my son Joseph that he will meet my legions in heaven” puts things in perspective and should be equally well remembered.

  • I love that quip of Pius XII Ivan! He said it to Winston Churchill who uttered another of my favorite quotes:

    “You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road will be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

5 Responses to Land of Saints

  • Donald and Catherine McClarey and Family: HAPPY SAINT PATRICK’S DAY

  • Saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland and the snakes came over to the White House. Our Lady of Knock pray for us and give us the strength to withstand the mighty temptation the snake puts before us. In the Name of Jesus. Amen

  • Thanks, Mary, and a Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you, too!

  • Went out to dinner last night to friends place – Geoff Keogh, and his wife Alayne – her maiden name was Curry – how Irish can you get?
    Quite a international gathering actually, if you consider our ancestry. Geoff and Alayne of course, Irish.
    Meself, Beckett, English/Norman name, but with Scottish(Celtic) and Saxon ancestry. My wife, nee Calder – Scottish from her father, and mother was part Maori.
    Happy St. Paddies day, wear the green, but treat the guiness with care 🙂

  • America was populated by so many Catholics from Ireland thanks be to God for Catholic priest and nuns. A mass with a bit of the Irish accent is so sweet.

George Washington Celebrates Saint Patrick’s Day

Saturday, March 17, AD 2012

 

Throughout his life George Washington had a great deal of sympathy for the struggles of the Irish against their English rulers, seeing in those struggles a mirror for the American fight for independence.  Irish immigrants to America, Protestant and Catholic, were enthusiastic in their embrace of the American cause, and during the Revolutionary War many of the soldiers who served in the Continental Army were Irish or of Irish descent.  Therefore when General Washington heard in March 1780 that the Irish Parliament had passed free trade legislation, he issued the following general order to the Army on March 16, 1780:

The general congratulates the army on the very interesting proceedings of the parliament of Ireland and the inhabitants of that country which have been lately communicated;  not only as they appear calculated to remove those heavy and tyrannical oppressions on their trade but to restore to a brave and generous people their ancient rights and freedom and by their operations to promote the cause of America.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to George Washington Celebrates Saint Patrick’s Day

  • The Army was encamped in Morristown, New Jersey that March.

    This year the American veteran is the honoree. As ever, the 69th (now 165) Inf. will lead. Some of these brave soldiers served in Iraq and too many there gave the last full measure of devotion. Many daily are on duty around NY since 11 September.

    Except for the black-hearted occupiers in Ulster, both Catholic and Protestant Irishmen were for independence.

    The NY TV coverage just began.

    The first (on the planet) St. Patrick’s Day Parade was in Boston in 1737.

    The first NYC parade was 1762.

    According to accounts, the Irish Brigade during the CW, after Holy Mass of course, would host colorful celebrations on our Patron Saint’s Holy Day.

    Erin Go Bragh!

    Washington’s mother was Irish . . .

  • The video implies that George Washington was chosen to lead the Continental Army DESPITE never having led an army in the field. This is not altogether accurate. Washington had certainly led militia in battle. And after Braddock’s fall, command of his army fell to Washington. It was Washington’s leadership and calm demeanor and fortitude in leading the retreat of Braddock’s forces that likely saved them from complete annihilation.

    It would prove to be a well of experience that Washington would dip into time and again during the Revolution.

    Yes, Washington was chosen to command the Continental Army for his character, but it was a character that was famous throughout the colonies because of the reputation he had forged for himself during the retreat of Braddock’s army.

    Primarily, though, he was chosen because he was a Virginian with military experience, as opposed to a hot-headed New Englander.

  • “And after Braddock’s fall, command of his army fell to Washington. It was Washington’s leadership and calm demeanor and fortitude in leading the retreat of Braddock’s forces that likely saved them from complete annihilation.”

    True Jay, and what is more remarkable is that as a Virginia militia officer Washington had no place in the formal chain of command. He took command as a result of his courage and the fact that he was the only one who had a clue as to how to fend off the French attack and have the army conduct a fighting retreat. After the battle Colonel Dunbar of the Royal Army took command, but Washington and his Virginians were the heroes of the day as Braddock acknowledge before he died. Washington commanded the Virginia militia on the frontier for the remainder of the French and the Indian War. Washington was by far the most experienced American soldier in a land that lacked any regular army.

  • Speaking of Irish immigration to Amreikay (as the Irish often said) here’s the classic Paddy’s Green Shore, performed by the Irish folk singer Paul Brady:

  • But if at last our color should
    Be torn from Ireland’s heart,
    Her sons with shame and sorrow
    From the dear old sod will part.
    I’ve heard a whisper of a country
    That lives far beyond the say,
    Where rich and poor stand equal
    In the light of freedom’s day.

    Oh, Erin! Must we lave you,
    Driven by the tyrant’s hand?
    Must we ask a mother’s welcome
    From a strange but happy land?
    Where the cruel cross of England’s thralldom
    Never shall be seen
    And where in peace we’ll live and die
    A-wearing of the green.

  • Speaking of wearing of the green, today was the 61st annual St. Patrick’s Day parade in Holyoke, MA. It lasted about three and a half hours televised on public tv. An estimated 400,000 – 500,00 were there. The route has been being lined with chairs since last Sunday. Last night, city blocks (the starting point of yesterday’s road race) were closed downtown for celebrators at party tents. Lots of green shamrocks painted on the streets and tee-shirts the color of the hat on the Wolfeken song for the runners. The parade had floats, colleens, area town and city officials, depts., schools, bands, the hospital, the Mummers, Rep. Neal and Sen. Olver.

McClarey Polling Central

Friday, March 16, AD 2012

(Guest post by Don’s wife Cathy)

Don normally delegates the job of answering the home telephone to me, and so I frequently find myself stuck in the role of the “meanie” turning down phone solicitations from the umpteenth charitable group remotely related to one I sent money to a month ago.  During the past few weeks, however, as the Illinois primaries have drawn nearer, clan McClarey has increasingly been the recipient of politically-themed telephone calls.  Sometimes, such calls present themselves honestly as campaign ads for (or attack ads against) one or another candidate for state or national office.  At other times, however, I have been polled.  If the pollster hears that I’m female (and they’ve already over-sampled female registered voters for that day), or that Don blogs about politics, the poll ends very quickly.

Last night, however, asserting that I was married to a blogger wasn’t enough to shoo the pollster away.  From the way the questions were framed, it quickly became obvious that I had been contacted by a “push poll” for Mitt Romney.  I wouldn’t have minded straightforward questions about my opinion of Mr. Romney’s stands on the issues; however, many of the questions consisted of one-liner attacks against Rick Santorum, and the answer choices were either:

did they make me think much more negatively about Santorum,

somewhat more negatively about Santorum,

or not change my mind at all?

I would have liked the option of saying that a statement made me think more positively about Santorum, or that a certain assertion just plain wasn’t true; however, the pollster wasn’t equipped to deal with anything “out of the box.”  (And that “push poll” managed to ruin the retrogaming “Let’s Play” video I’d been recording for YouTube at the time of the call, too!  🙁 )

Continue reading...

4 Responses to McClarey Polling Central

  • Cathy: Unplug the telephone when retrogaming or making YouTube videos. Believe you me, they will call back. Always unplug the phone. It gives one control over one’s private life.

  • (from Cathy:)
    “Always unplug the phone.”
    Either that, or train Don to pick up the phone when I’m recording videos for YouTube! 😉

  • Cathy I thought this was from your husband Don and I wrote: The “always unplug the phone” refers only to when your wife Cathy is making YouTube vidoes. The “or train Don” would be counterproductive if “Don” was doing something more important. May God Bless you and keep you. I do appreciate this blog.

  • We don’t get too many political polls here in blue blue MD, but I got a strange survey a few weeks ago. The poll wanted to know my opinion of “U.S. based financial institutions.” The pollster couldn’t get more specific than that. He also wanted to know if I blamed this nebulous group for the fiscal crisis, and if I liked my local bank. Very strange.

An American Issue

Friday, March 16, AD 2012

Note how the Bishops in the above video indicate what a unique threat to the Catholic Church in America the Obama administration poses.  They recognize that the goal of the current administration is to strip the Bishops, through fostering a de facto schism in the Church, of their ability to stand in the way of this administration.  This is all very unprecedented in American history and all very dangerous to our concept of religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution.  The Administrative Committee of the USCCB set out what is at stake well on March 14th:

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin,  first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to An American Issue

  • This is all-out political warfare, no holds barred.

    If an outright yahoo such as myself knew this four years past, [fill in the blank].

    Social justice was used as the alibi for all sins.

    Hate and Chains!

    I know. I know.

    I’m a RACIST!

  • Where are the voices from the Democratic Party, once a bastion of faithful Catholics, who legislated for the common man? Are they in chains tallying collected dues, being used to further debase their once loyal catholic identity, selling their souls and their ultimate caretakers to a joyless, blasphemous destiny? Judas comes to mind.

    I cannot believe that the Democratic Party has finished homogenizing its collective mind. With a world of problems from which to choose to find a solution, the focus is to fester another problem – and in the only area on earth that ultimately supports them.

    The catholic voices that have lost the sound of faith to the sound of cacophony.

  • Pingback: Obama vs. bishops « Blithe Spirit
  • When the Supreme Court for the United States of America hears the Obamacare case as a violation of conscience, as Obamacare is a violation of conscience, the Court will be giving countenance to and legitimacy to the greatest perjury in the history of humankind. TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will have been silenced and imprisoned in the chains of perjury, subliminal suggestion, lies, false advertisement, uninformed consent, swindle, cheating, stealing, and more lies and more perjury by the handmaid of the Satan. If Obamacare is not prevented from scamming unsuspecting citizens into surrendering their sovereignty for a cup of hemlock, the Supreme Court for the United States of America will become a useful idiot in the grand scheme of the Great Liar. The atheist, too, is become a useful idiot in the removal of all of every citizen’s unalienable rights, our founding principles, and especially Our CREATOR’S Divine Providence. The bottomless pit of hell is staring us and our Supreme Court in the face in Obamacare. HOPE and CHANGE without informed consent, without the TRUTH, without sovereignty, without freedom is not HOPE and CHANGE, no more so than Obamacare is healthcare.
    An eighty four year old man insisted that everybody ought to have healthcare and I agree. Obamacare is poised to balance the budget on his grave and he cannot see through it, because of the subliminal suggestions planted in his heart and mind. Subliminal suggestion is illegal and unconstitutional. Insincere promises (or lies) in Obamcare are the bait in a trap for America’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of each and every person as a citizen in the US. A one world government under the world bank, instead of under God, is the ultimate goal of the devil. Obamacare is only the weapon to be used against the sovereignty of America. Obamcare is only the bait into the black hole of servitude to another man, (created equal), whose god is mammon.
    Let us show Obama what freedom looks like in November. Let us show the devil the gates to Hell, the black hole, the true Obamacare: WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD?
    And to atheists who are sincerely searching for the truth. God is permitting this violation of sovereignty and truth for you to come to your sovereignty and the truth. Follow the truth. The truth will set you free and make you sovereign.
    The schism in the nation has occurred. The schism occurred when the Supreme Court relegated the Person of God to the status of Persona non grata, abortion to “a political point of view” along with gay-marriage, infanticide, and rape of infant children, who, without informed consent have had their body parts desecrated; the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition the human being as having an immortal, rational soul.

  • “the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition of the human being as having an immortal, rational soul; the human being, as a being composed of a body and a rational, immortal soul.”
    the word for correction I do not know.

  • I suppose, if we are to be prepared for any outcome, we should look at the Augustinian view of “Moral War” in light of such Scriptural admonishments as found in Romans 13. With the exegesis of the rest of the book, as well as the Gospels and all of the New Testament, it should be discussed now, I’d think, when heads are still cool and backs are not against any walls.

    If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.

    That we have escaped largely unharmed is a testament to our traditional character, but it is obvious to any with a lick of sense that the character so employed is now a scarce commodity.

    I am reminded of the brilliance of Hillaire Belloc:

    “We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile. ”

    The “large and awful faces” now sit in the highest seats of power in America. It would behoove us to thoroughly argue various methods of repelling their assaults upon us, so that we are sufficiently prepared, and united.

  • You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.

  • “You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.”

    Amen that.

  • Perhaps, but the next step has to be taken, and that is to ask “why?” The answer is obvious to us, of course.

    To what end does any government actively call attention to such an all-too-human rift in any religion or ideology, but to attack it? What other purpose could there be to risk the backlash and fallout that most certainly will (and even now starts to) occur? Why does this administration care, other than to exploit a strategic weakness, indicating it actually has a strategy that neeeds this exploitation?

    To downplay Caiaphas’ impact on the schism itself is to dissemble the truth; regardless of why it’s there, this president’s exploitation of it makes him anti-Catholic and fascist, and as such he should be given neither excuse nor benefit of doubt. Unless, of course, you’re on his side.

  • I agree with c matt. Obama is exploiting and counting on an already existing de facto schism. I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.

  • The exploitation by any American president of any religious division in this country Mike I regard as per se sinister. That he might be doing so for mere momentary political advantage actually increases the contempt I feel for him.

  • Does anyone know how the Bishops are distinguishing the Obamacare mandate for employers to purchase health insurance (which covers contraceptives) from individuals being required to pay federal taxes (of which a fraction goes to grants to Planned Parenthood)? Why would complying with one (the Obamacare mandate) be sinful and not complying with the other (paying federal taxes) be sinful? Is it because only a tiny fraction of federal income taxes go to grants for Planned Parenthood while a larger fraction of health care premiums would go to contraceptives? Or is because one is called a tax and one is called a mandate? What if the feds said the employers will not be paying any premiums, instead they pay a tax and then the employees get free health care? Would that make a difference?

    Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the Bishops cracking some heads, I am just a little confused about how one is sin and one is not.

  • J: You are correct. Obamacare is a tax and a mandate. Obamacare tax deletes the middle man, IRS. O makes you spend his (the government owns and controls everything) money the way Obama tells you.

    You must pay your income tax and when Obama gets the money you have no say in how it is wasted.

    If you don’t pay your income tax, you will learn two things: the reason why they had to amend the Constitution to institute the income tax and that you have no rights in tax court. No Fifth amendment. If you own anything the IRS will take it. Then you go to jail.

    Heretics had more rights with the Spanish Inquisition. Only difference being the IRS can’t torture you.

  • “I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.”

    That may be true. But in then end, this battle is not with men such as Obama. Rather this battle is with diabolical forces intent on attacking the Church. Obama and his Saruman-like Minions in the Church are merely pawns in an ancient battle. Pawns who have fallen for one lie or another by the Evil One even if they remain ignorant of the Dark One’s ultimate plan. So there will be further attacks even if this one is stopped. Either by Obama or other Minions. However, if this one succeeds, the next will be truly vile.

    We ultimately do not lose hope as the Easter Victory is eternal. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, though there may be great suffering prior to the final victory. Pray. Fast. Then act to prevent further evil.

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

  • There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. You had Bishops outright rejection or their refusal to teach the dangers of contraception and the consequences. You had Vatican II which changed a lot of things in the Church (the left/ liberals used this time to their advantage). Then you also had sisters and nuns rejecting Church teachings and following the radical feminists. Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues with subjects that are not necessarily intrinsically evil to this very day), using Alinsky ideas, followed by “social justice” which has been more like socialism and earth worship. Also, you can’t ignore the homosexual infiltration into the seminaries which led to the terrible sexual scandals. Today, you have “catholic” politicians who support contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research like Sebelius, Pelosi, Cuomo, Kerry, Biden, the Kennedys, Durbin, etc with hardly any of the Bishops doing anything about them. Obama surrounds himself with these left, unorthodox “catholics” and yes, I think he does want to split the Catholic Church. The Bishops need to face some facts about Obama and the Democratic Party. These are not the Democrats your grandparents supported.

    It really all starts with us though. WE have to seek and find the REAL teachings, dogmas, doctrines of the Catholic Church. WE need to stop picking and choosing what we want to believe and we need to speak up. I’m praying for our Pope, the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Religious that the Holy Spirit will enlighten them with truth and courage!

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

    If I understand correctly, the clergy associated with SSPX are excommunicate, not anyone else. It is permissible for laymen to attend SSPX services if done out of appreciation for the old rite and not in a spirit of disobedience.

    There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.

    Which bishops? The prominent dissenters on this question have been Charles Curran, Andrew Greeley, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Garry Wills. None of them are bishops. It was local parish priests who refused to enforce the teaching in the confessional.

    Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues

    The Church in America had been an institutional wreck for a dozen years or more ‘ere Cdl. Bernardin’s wheel-spinning in the NCCB committee structure got underway.

  • AS WK Aiken wrote, “If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.”

    Heaven forbid! But a second Obama term may make that a reality. 🙁

  • Obama supports the destruction of all Christian churches.

  • What I am about to say may be viewed as imprudent by some here. But the bishops have done much to bring this about. Hillsdale College professor Paul Rahe wrote an interesting article on this subject:

    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil/(page)/7

    Also, when you consider the fact that Obama being an Alinskyite and the influence Alinsky had on Church bureaucracies in the U.S., he is well aware of the divsions that exist. Remember, it was the same Cdl George who couldn’t stick to his guns with Fr. Pfleger and then presided over a function of the Archdiocesan Office for Racial Equality where Pfleger was given a lifetime achievement award. Never mind the fact that Fr. Pfleger is as thick as theives with bigots like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakan.

    Then you have Cdl Dolan equating Arizona’s SB 1070 with the Know Nothing Party. When you have prominent American Prelates projecting weakness and engaging in left wing demagoguory, you invite the kind of actions Obama is taking and it isn’t like he needs an invitation.

  • Living in a country that has had a tax-funded national health service for over sixty years, and in which the taxpayer has no say on which ‘health’ provision his money is spent on, I find the present debate in the US rather bemusing. However, Catholics in the US should be aware that the British government is planning to legislate for same-sex marriage (despite the fact that the present civil partnership laws give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples anyway). PM David Cameron is cosying up to Barak Obama, who is no friend to England but has his eyes fixed on the upcoming election, and is pointedly ignoring anyone from the Republican party. As a life-long Tory voter, I hoped that the new ministry would roll back some of the stifling political correctness which characterized New Labour but Cameron seems to want to out-Blair Blair.

    The Catholic Church in England and Wales lacks any credible leadership (Scotland is better) and the Established Church is facing having its bishops ejected from the House of Lords since they are ‘incompatible with a multicultural society’. I was brought up in a country which prided itself on its tolerance and innate sense of liberty and fair play. I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants. Be warned, America, and for God’s sake don’t go the same way.

  • “I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants.”

    That is happening in both countries John, albeit at a slower pace in America, but Obama is attempting to quicken the process.

    For those of us who cherish liberty it is time for us to take a stand, all of us recalling this Churchill quote:
    “This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

    I have no intention of having the liberty that many of my ancestors purchased with their blood taken away piece by piece for Leftist political schemes and to serve the ends of politicians drunk with power.

  • If it is truly phrophetic is will come to pass, and nothing can stop it.

  • Then let us pray that it is not prophetic Janice and let us work to help bring our prayers to fruition. We are God’s instruments in this world and it is up to each of us to make our actions match our faith.

  • When the HHS Mandate goes to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, architect of Obamacare must recuse herself, or be removed physically dragging her feet and screaming. Obamacare is Elena Kagan’s brainchild. Surely, Kagan will want to see this monstrosity endure. Kagan has a vested interest and the conflict of interest thereof. There may be a 4 to 4 split in the Court, who then, casts the deciding vote? Is that person of integrity and trustworthy?

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WAR | ThePulp.it
  • The constitutionality of Obamacare is only a small issue. The constitutionality of Obama and his cronies is the greater issue. The Constitution for the United States of America prohibits a religious test for candidates for public office. Our constitution does not prohibit a religious test for removing public officials, presidents and his appointees from office for egregiously violating our founding principles, ignoring their sworn oaths to uphold our founding principles while in office and for violating our constitutional principles.
    IF Peter Singer, Barack Obama, or Cecile Richards cannot explain their existence without reference to our Constitutional CREATOR, our unalienable rights, and our founding principles, they are unfit for office. Obama has violated his oath of office. Let us dig up Margaret Sanger and ask her for her opinion. Saul Alinsky asked God to send him to hell. Maybe HOPE and CHANGE will make Alinsky feel bad. Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, Geitner need to be shown the broom closet door, the same broom closet door, Obama, as senator from Chicago showed to our newest constitutional posterity, our newest citizens, the persons he refused to aid when they survived abortion. Obama has since ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed. No snowflake babies for him. Nope.
    Peter Singer was deported from Australia. Germany refused to give Singer admittance. Princeton University welcomed Singer with the DeCamp Chair of Bioethics where he teaches the most elite sons of our people that killing a citizen if you do not like the child for up to six years after they come into their citizenship as “after birth abortion” is valid. Singer teaches that taking the life of another person is not a crime of homicide or infanticide or human sacrifice to the demon god of political correctness, environmental or really stupid (oh, seriousness) imbecilic eugenics. Cecile Richards, go get Margaret Sanger. Maybe Sanger can tell us how to live forever.

  • Pingback: For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey! | The American Catholic

Ides of March: Brutus

Thursday, March 15, AD 2012

This was the noblest Roman of them all:

All the conspirators, save only he,

 Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;

He, only in a general honest thought

And common good to all, made one of them.

Mark Antony referring to Brutus in Julius Caesar

I think it would have amused the Romans of Caesar’s generation if they could have learned that the assassination of Julius Caesar would eventually receive immortality through a play written more than 16 centuries after the event by a barbarian playwright in the Tin Islands that Caesar had briefly invaded.  It would have tickled their well developed concept of the ludicrous, judging from Roman comedy.

Continue reading...

One Response to Ides of March: Brutus

The Devil and Daniel Webster: Closing Argument to the Jury of the Damned

Thursday, March 15, AD 2012

A scene from the classic movie, The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941), based upon the short story by Stephen Vincent Benet, in which Daniel Webster bests Satan in a jury trial to save the soul of New Hampshireman Jabez Stone.   In this scene Daniel Webster addresses a jury of the damned, all villains of American history.  I have always thought this speech one of the most eloquent statements of what it means to be an American.  Go here to read the passage in  Stephen Vincet Benet’s short story.  Below is the scene as written in the screenplay:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Devil and Daniel Webster: Closing Argument to the Jury of the Damned

  • Donald McClarey: The Devil and Daniel Webster is my favorite movie of all time. The devil stole a pie at the end and enjoyed his ill gotten pie. Every man can escape from the devil’s clutches because the devil is a liar and man has a finite mind and cannot give fully informed consent to a lie. The rational, immortal soul of each and every man is acknowedged and fought over to be free, a sovereignty American citizens are in joepardy of losing under HHS. May God bless you and yours.

  • The Catholic Church does not hold a person’s soul liable for any sin committed while the person is possessed by the devil. Really, if it can be proved that “the devil made me do it” in a court of law, the person is found to be not guilty by reason of possession by the devil. Might this argument not be used to return petition for Divine Providence, protection and deliverance from the evil one, in the public square? These prayers are said for the common good. “And may Almighty God have mercy on your immortal soul” was said at one time by the judge after the verdict and at sentencing, to a condemned capital one murderer, as we’ll as the invocation to almighty God “to tell the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God” at the beginning of sworn testimony. What could be better for the common good? Returning the acknowledgment of the rational, immortal soul of each and every American citizen will staunch our nation’s descent into the hell fires of inhumanity, the propagation of LUST as love, homicide as charity and bestiality as tenderness, and the worst, tyranny as a desirable form of government.
    ATHEISM UNDONE BY TRUTH from http://www.rosaryvictory blogspot.com
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the self-proclaimed atheist sued to have all mankind’s First Amendment rights to FREEDOM subjugated to her lawsuit through her complaint that prayer to God, through Jesus Christ offended her son. An imperfect human nature, who is offended by perfection.
    If Madalyn Murray O’Hair was truly an atheist, she would have annihilated her own being. God, our Creator, made all things and KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE, therefore, Madalyn Murray O’Hair at some underlying level of consciousness, accepted God’s love for her and for her son. Madalyn Murray O’Hair spoke perjury in The United States Supreme Court, when, as an atheist she said: “I AM an atheist.” The atheist used God’s name: “I AM”, in vain and contradicted herself. Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not prove her case as perjurers never do.
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not have two witnesses to establish a judicial fact. Two atheists cannot bear the Truth into a court of law. Perjury does not count.
    Thank you Donald McClarey for The American Catholic

  • It is the intent of Obama’s HHS mandate to remove from every person their sovereignty, to enslave the person’s soul to the dictates of the mandate. When one lays down with the devil, one wakes up in chains.

  • iN MAYO V. SATAN: the court was wrong. All the Legion could fit on the head of a pin and all the space is left over. The court ought to have ordered an exorcism as the decision. The separation of Church and state are complementary.

  • The Devil and Daniel Webster, is my favorite movie of all times because it is GOOD.

    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS uses the King James version of the Bible and ends up blaspheming God, by calling God a thing, a “that”. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”. WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD. “WHO” denotes the PERSON OF GOD. The SUPREME SOVERIGN BEING’S NAME IS “I AM WHO I AM” not what is used in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. The correlative pronoun “that” denotes things that are not persons.

    THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is in a category all by itself.

    The rest are entertainment. I would like to see a movie entitled: Frankenstein goes in search of his soul.

  • In The Lord’s Prayer we read: ”forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who sin against us”. Sinners and trespassers are addressed by “WHO”, but the Lord of heaven and earth is insulted by a correlative pronoun “that”. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”

Poor Arlen!

Thursday, March 15, AD 2012

I know that it will sadden the readers of this blog that “Snarlin’ Arlen” Specter, former pro-abort Senator from Pennsylvania, who became a Democrat in 2009, in an unsuccessful attempt to win re-election in the Senate, complains in his memoir, according to an article in The Hill, that he didn’t get his 30 pieces of silver:

Specter laments that Obama and Vice President Biden did not do more to help him in the final days of his primary race against former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who beat him 54 percent to 46 percent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary.

Specter writes that Obama turned down a request to campaign with him in the final days of the primary, because the president’s advisers feared he would look weak if he intervened and Specter lost.

“I realized that the president and his advisers were un-shy about supporting my candidacy after being stung by Obama’s failed rescue attempts for New Jersey governor Jon Corzine and Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley. They were reluctant to become victims of a trifecta,” he writes.

The snub was made all the more painful by Obama flying over Philadelphia en route to New York City a few days before the election and then on primary day jetting over Pittsburgh to visit a factory in Youngstown, Ohio, 22 miles from the Pennsylvania border, to promote the 2009 economic stimulus law. The painful irony for Specter is that his vote for the stimulus legislation, which was instrumental to its passage, hastened his departure from the Republican Party.

Specter was also disappointed that Biden, who was only a few blocks away at Penn University, did not attend a pre-primary day rally at the Phillies’s Citizens Bank Park — a missed opportunity Specter attributes to a failed staff-to-staff request.

Just over a year before, Obama and Biden welcomed Specter to the Democratic Party with a press conference at the White House and promised him his full support.

Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it. 

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Poor Arlen!

The Courage of the New York Times

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

 

Recently the New York Times ran a Catholic bashing ad calling for Liberal Catholics to desert the Faith.  The ad was sponsored by the virulently anti-Catholic atheist group Freedom From Religion.  Go here to read a superb evisceration of the ad by Charles Lewis.

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged decided to submit an ad which made similar accusations, but against Islam instead of the Church.  The New York Times rejected the ad.

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.” So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?” Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.” I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.” He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference is, ours was true and what we describe is true. The anti-Catholic ad was written by fallacious feminazis.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to The Courage of the New York Times

  • All the news that’s fit to print … er … spin … uh … omit.

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

  • This is getting scary. Where is this going?

    When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?

  • I have my qualms about Pam Geller, but this was pure, unadulterated brilliance.

    Starting with the fawning treatment of the “mostly peaceful” Occupiers, the President’s embrace of Bill Maher’s sweet, sweet cash and now this, 2012 is shaping up to be the Year of the Double Standard.

    Good to have it out in the open.

  • “Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?”

    The first step is to give the forces of anti-Catholic bigotry a thrashing this year at the polls that they, and the nation, will long remember.

  • They are so easily played.

    It’s censorship, too. They do not tolerate dissent.

    All the news that’s fit to print with a pinko yellow tint.

  • The Imam in the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz.
    ~The Sweet

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Ugh. Just read the original. Isn’t the “owner” of the blog here a lawyer? What are the definitions of libel? Is the original ad libelous? If not, it sure comes awfully darned close.

    That said, though, I must (while holding my nose) agree with one thing it says. At the end, it asks all liberal, lukewarm and “cafeteria” Catholics to exit. Fine with me. Vaya con Dios, and please, do come back if you want to actually observe the faith. Remember the Prodigal.

    I forget where I read it, but somebody of some import said that those who do not stand with Cardinal Dolan, et al., against this onslaught have already left the Church. They just don’t know it. It all comes down to actions vs. words. I could stand in the garage, go “vroom vroom” and expel smelly fumes but that does not make me a car.

    If you want to work on Saturdays and eat a McRib, help yourself. Just don’t call yourself an Orthodox Jew.

    If you want to throw back a shot or two of Jack Daniel’s and your wife & daughters can wear things other than a body-length shower curtain, fine. Just don’t call yourself a Muslim.

    If you want to artificially interrupt God’s gift of the creation of life for your own carnal needs, hey, more power to ya. Just don’t call yourself a Catholic.

    And, if you want to lie, twist, propagandize, oppress, attack, persecute, threaten and tyrannize, take your best shot. Just don’t call yourself an American, because that’s the last thing in the world you are. I’d suggest, too, that you go someplace else to do it – Americans are pretty patient but we do have our limits. Remember, there’s a Second Amendment right behind the First.

  • It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney. Nothing in the original ad would constitute libel in the legal sense, since it is basically a long rant based upon opinion. Additionally since the Church most definitely is a “public figure” it would be virtually impossible to prevail in a libel suit under current case law.

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

    Prof. Robert David Johnson (a.k.a. “KC Johnson”).

    Prof. Harold Pollack is a fairly resonable fellow.

  • Never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. There was a story the other day about a toilet paper shortage in New Jersey. Seems to me that The New York Times could very well fill the gap.

  • “When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets.”

    Unfortunately there would be a fair number taking to the streets to attack the Church:

    http://vox-nova.com/2012/03/13/us-bishops-veering-off-track/#comments

  • It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney.

    Thanks for the chuckle and explanation. To my discredit I am not up to snuff on the basics of such things, and should probably reinforce my fundamental knowledge.

    Maybe when the next teenager departs for academia and I get half my house back . . .

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

    Nat Hentoff.

  • DP:

    I’m not sure Nat H. is a real liberal.

    Can you cite any writing or statement where he either called a conservative woman a dirty name or defended those that did?

    AD: Clueless college professors don’t count.

  • eat a McRib

    I’m not so sure that counts as pork. In fact, I’m not sure what it is.

  • I wonder whether those dissing the ‘lack of courage’ of the NYT have considered that their response – not wanting to inflame an already tense situation – – most likely had to do with our young men and women who are “in harm’s way” in Afghanistan and, in smaller numbers, in some other countries overseas. There’s nothing whatever in their response that indicates that the concern was for themselves.

  • The New York Times Tade has never been shy about reporting alleged misdeeds by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in banner head lines. The fact that this might have inflamed jihadis in those country and lead to the death of American servicemen never bothered them in the slightest. The rejection of the ad was all about the cowardice of the New York Times personnel fearing for their own safety if they printed the ad, and also because it is not politically correct to give vent to anti-Islamic sentiment while anti-Catholic bigotry is virulent on the ever so tolerant Left.

  • Nat Hentoff is my favorite pro-life atheist, a contradiction in realities. Pro-life persons are conservative. It was lovely meeting him here again.

  • Yeah, the Times is desperately concerned about the safety of our servicemen overseas. That must be it. It doesn’t jibe with how they reported Abu Ghraib, but charity believeth all things, I suppose.

    http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/abu_ghraib/index.html

  • It’s our own fault. When are Catholics going to stop voting for Democrats? Yes, there is a connection between seeing this kind of anti-catholic bullying and politics. Do you think it’s coincidental this ad runs so closely following the contraception coverage controversy in the Obamacare law?
    No, it’s no coincidence…..and it will continue…. Wake up and stop voting for Democrats!

Cult of Obama? What Cult of Obama?

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

22 Responses to Cult of Obama? What Cult of Obama?

  • Deuteronomy 5:6-10

    6* I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before* me. 8 You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

  • Obama-worshiping imbeciles unite!

    You have nothing.

    Obama took Dougie Kmiec, et al up and showed them all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and Obama said to them, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been given to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.” And Dougie Kmiec, et al answered Obama, “Sign me up!””

  • In the interest of free speech I believe the Obama flag is fine. Also in the interest of free speech I believe we should have Obama flag burnings.

  • Makes me want to puke. As a Navy veteran, I didn’t serve to have such a graven image embossed on one of nation’s most sacred symbols. What ever happened to the country I grew up in? I don’t recognize it any more.

  • Reminds me of the transfiguration of G.W. Bush at mount Oval Office, conversing with the prophets George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

    I don’t much care for either of them, although I’d rather they blaspheme my country over my religion

  • Actually cmatt that kitschy painting shows Washington and Lincoln being ghosts, and praying with Bush as he bows his head in prayer. I don’t care for the picture, but I do not think it is in the same category.

    http://www.bigredgallery.com/pc-2862-43-praying-for-peace-by-ron-dicianni.aspx

  • You’re probably right, on further reflection (and seeing the title).

    Although, I don’t see anything particularly “religious” about the O Flag, either. Cultish yes. And definitely grossly out of proportion to any achievements.

  • It’s a handy reminder about the Great Uniter: America is the Body of Obama, and He is the Head.

    It’s a good thing Paul fans are much, much worse. /sarc

  • To me, this flag is a sacrilege.The words “God and Country” are words that go together naturally because they give voice to high feelings of love that healthy people have for their native land, their patrimony. When we salute our flag, we celebrate the “we” of –us — of who we are in the world. Many people have willingly borne the flag into battle, defying death to honor the land they love. The fanatical glorification of Obama blurs patriotism with partisan loyalty. As much as I like Santorum, I would never want his picture on our national flag.

    Even people calling for separation of Church and State are surely aware of the fine line between patriotic feelings of love for our nation and religious feelings of love and worship of God. Putting Obama on the flag to me is tantamount to putting him up there with God. The picture recently on this blog of Obama being honored at Notre Dame made my gut wrench.

  • The American Flag speaks for each and every American. As constituents of Barack Obama very few persons are represented. It is taxation without representation as far as taxes are concerned and it is usurpation and plagiarism of every man’s intellectual property to deface the American Flag. It is a violation of free speech to every American citizen who does not adhere to Obama’s ruthless annihilation of freedom in America.

  • Paul W. Primavera: Isn’t it wonderful that God has given us His Word to follow?

  • Yes, Mary. All praise, honor and glory be to HIm who was, and is and ever more shall be. And I mean that sincerely.

  • Hank: Amendment XIV Section 1

    1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    A person becomes a citizen when he is born into America. The newly begotten are citizens of nature and nature’s God and are not subject to the jurisdiction of America or Roe.

  • Draft Executive Order to be issued the day after election (win or lose) by the President of the United States on his authority deriving from being Barrack H Obama..

    The Constitution of the US is amended as follows:

    Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We, the Barrack H Obama, in Order to form a more perfect Collective, establish Fairness, insure domestic Tolerance, provide the party’s Defense, promote the Welfare system, and secure the Blessings of Multiculturism to ourselves and our (unaborted) Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except for secularism. , or permitting the free exercise thereof; or allowing the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. shall not be tolerated.

    Amendment XIV Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside Barrack H Obama is a Natural born Citizen of the United States and the State in which he resides To promote diversity and preferences. No State shall Any state may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State maydeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor and may deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Any person has a right to be aborted before or after birth.

  • Paul W. Primavera: If that is Socrates in your likeness, Please know that Socrates was an accomplice in his own murder. Jesus Christ did nothing to enable His Crucifixion, but Socrates took the hemlock and DRANK it. Now, the Euthanasia group is called the Hemlock Society because people are supposed to drink their cup of hemlock. Well, hell, no. If you kill me, I am coming back to get you.

  • The funniest thing to me is that this office is less than ten miles from my house and I had no clue it was even there. There’s a reason they didn’t get a response to their stupid flag for two months and that is that Lake County is so red no one even knew the Democrats had a headquarters here.

    But seriously, there are an absolute TON of retired vets living here. It’s about the worst place in the country you could fly this stupid thing. I guarantee you there will be people driving by this office every day from now on to check and see if they’ve put the thing back up- and to complain very loudly if it does end up back on that flagpole.

  • Gut wrenching to the point that there must be intent to – foment, I mean, desensitize.
    There’s a law now for detention of the not domestically tranquil. Surely, nothing to do with 57 stars.

  • Yes, Obama is that IN YOUR FACE on purpose. Obama plans a prayer service on the steps of the Supreme Court when HHS mandate is being tried. Let’s all pray for Barack Obama to go to heaven. Let’s all turn his prayers into heaven for him.

  • Let us remember there are laws governing the flying of our great flag. Size and shape, numbers of stripes and stars, how it is to be folded, how and where it will be used during funeral services etc. etc. I say we try and get the bastard thrown out of office for defacing the American Flag! From former US Army Firfighter 1st Infantry Division light. Hoo Raa

  • Fdchaplain I like your spirit! Thank you for your service.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ThePulp.it

A Few Thoughts About Last Night

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

As was tweeted by a few individuals, it is remarkable that a conservative, Catholic, Republican – who largely rejects JFK’s sentiments on religion in the public square to boot – won primaries in Alabama and Mississippi.  It’s also becoming evident that exit polling means squat with regards to Rick Santorum.

Mitt Romney continues to be the weakest front-runner imaginable.  It was funny to listen to John Batchelor and his parade of insiders smugly dismiss Santorum’s victories and chat away about the inevitability of Romney’s nomination while Santorum was winning two southern states in which Romney finished third.  Yes, Romney still has an edge, and with victories in American Samoa and Hawaii Santorum’s delegate edge last night was minimal.  But Romney has far from sealed the deal.

Speaking of Romney, his gaggle of supporters truly marked themselves by their utter gracelessness in defeat.  As Mark Levin said, Romney supporters are quickly becoming as obnoxious as Ron Paul supporters.  It’s true that partisans of all of the candidates can be particularly blind to their own candidate’s faults and to exaggerate the foibles of the others, but Romney supporters in all corners of the internet have been particularly bitter and have done little to actually sway others to their side.  What might explain this phenomenon is that unlike the others, Romney voters aren’t particularly enamored with their candidate and are instead motivated by either dislike of the other candidates and/or fear that any other candidate would lose the general election.  So they don’t really have any convincing arguments to make on behalf of Romney, but instead they kick and stomp their feet every time Romney fails to win a primary.  I would suggest that calling those of us who don’t vote for Romney a bunch of hayseed hicks, and suggesting that social cons be banished from consideration this election might just not be a winning strategy.  Just saying.

As for Newt, there is absolutely no compelling reason for him to stay in this race.  He won his home state, the state neighboring his home state, and has otherwise been a distant consideration save for the states he lost last night in the south.  Rick Santorum already had a slight lead in Louisiana, and I think that last night’s victories just about clinches the state for him (though that’s a rather dangerous prediction considering the wildness of this primary season thus far).  That being said, his reasoning for staying in is not all that outrageous.  He suggested that he didn’t want Romney to concentrate all of his fire on Santorum, something I said not that long ago.  And while he has no realistic shot to win the nomination before or even during the Republican convention – is a brokered convention really going to nominate the guy with the third most delegates coming in? – he might be able to prevent Romney from securing the necessary number of delegates, and that seems to be his primary goal.  After all, not all of his supporters will switch to Santorum.  By staying in the race he is hurting Santorum, but he’s also hurting Romney by picking off a few delegates.  Take away Gingrich from last night, and both Santorum and Romney would have won more delegates.  That would have inched Romney closer to the nomination.

On the other hand, I don’t suppose Gingrich contributors are going to be all that enthused to continue propping up a candidate who has no intention of actually winning, and is instead motivated by nothing more than spite.  Also, as was discussed last night, even if Romney fails to secure the precious 1,044 delegates by the time Tampa rolls around, he’ll still be the favorite at a brokered convention if he is significantly ahead of Santorum.  There is no magical candidate that will emerge from the ashes of a brokered convention.  It’s either going to be Romney or it’s going to be Santorum.  Every delegate that Santorum doesn’t win from here until the convention is just as good as a delegate for Romney under a brokered convention scenario.  If Santorum remains fairly close in the delegate count while neither candidate has the necessary majority, then Gingrich can play kingmaker at the convention.  He would be well-advised to drop out sooner than later if he wants to achieve his twin objection of derailing Romney and having a hand in deciding the eventual nominee.

Continue reading...

59 Responses to A Few Thoughts About Last Night

  • The electablility argument is getting pretty thread bare for Romney, which has been the only selling point of the Weathervane’s campaign. There is a poll out today showing Romney getting trounced by Obama in Pennsylvania by six points with Santorum trailing Obama by one. Plus, as Paul points out, polls routinely understate Santorum’s actual vote totals, usually by three-four points. We are beginning to see a “Reagan Effect” in Santorum’s numbers, Reagan consistantly doing better on election day than his polls indicated.

  • As that commenter at Paul’s blog noted the other day, Romney must be the most unelectable candidate in history whose most compelling argument in his favor is “electability”.

    Larry Sabato seems to get what we get and what so many GOP Establishment types (see, e.g., Pawlenty’s gawdawful and pathetic shilling last night) just can’t seem to grasp:

    “Yes, he’s constructed a solid organization, but it cannot hide Romney’s unappealing inadequacies. Maybe a bad economy will elect him anyway, but without pure luck tossing the White House into his lap, he needs Rick Santorum’s challenge. Santorum is forcing Romney to earn the nomination every step of the way, and maybe, just maybe, he’s making Romney face up to his severe shortcomings on the campaign trail before it is too late to do anything about them.”

    I doubt it, if the oh-so-inspiring delegate-math talking points the Romney sycophants are spouting is any indication. They JUST DON’T GET IT. Romney has run the sort of campaign an incumbent runs – the sort of campaign Bush ran against Kerry in 2004 – that focuses on the negatives of the alternative and relies on superior organizational infrastructure to ensure the votes are there when and where they are needed. But Romney is NOT an incumbent, and, at any rate, this type of strategy will NOT work against Obama in the fall.

    What he has utterly failed to do is provide a compelling reason to vote FOR him. He has offered no compelling conservative vision for the GOP or for the nation. And he has never provided a satisfactory narrative explaining how a life-long self-described “progressive”/”moderate” Republican and a supporter of the “pro-choice” viewpoint suddenly at the age of 60 decided that he could be be the “conservative” standard bearer. And he can’t provide such an explanation because we’d all know it to be complete crap. Just look at who those supporting him are today. Just look at his discomfort in trying to sound like a “severe conservative”. Just look at how easily and with such flair he gets into his comfort zone in going to his opponents’ left.

    Quite honestly, Romney offers nothing to the GOP electorate other than a warm body and nice hair to put up as an alternative to Barack Obama. Sorry, but given his ACTUAL track record, that ain’t enough to get me to pull the lever for him.

  • I’m not as sanguine about Santorum’s prospects. The following is this morning’s take from one of my politically astute partners:

    The upcoming calendar will be much more favorable for Romney. (Even last night, he gained more delegates than Santorum with his wins in Hawaii and Samoa.)

    Here are the upcoming races with number of delegates:

    March 17 Missouri (52) Expect Santorum to win here
    March 18 *Puerto Rico (23) Romney
    March 20 Illinois (69) Romney
    March 24 Louisiana (24) While the south, very different than SC, GA, AL, MS with the very heavy Catholic vote
    Apr 3 *Wisconsin (42) Romney (although Gingrich claims he will win because wife no. 3 is from here)
    Apr 3 *Maryland (37) Romney
    Apr 3 *DC (19) Romney
    Apr 24 New York (95) Romney
    Apr 24 Pennsylvania (72) Bet it is close
    Apr 24 Connecticut (28) Romney
    Apr 24 Rhode Island (19) Romney
    Apr 24 *Delaware (16) Romney

    I have marked with an * those primaries that are winner take all. That has been a huge plus for Romney so far. He has won most of those states so far. And the calendar is shaping up well for him going forward on those. I really can’t see him losing any of the upcoming five—Puerto Rico, Wisconsin, Maryland, DC, or Delaware.

    Because most of the other primaries, until you get to California, will be some sort of proportional award of the delegates, it is very hard for the others to catch Romney. Right now, he has the pretty commanding lead and more than everybody else put together. And he is entering a much more favorable calendar for him. The worst is behind him. He should have a big day on April 24. If he does not, then he is in trouble. But I really can’t see Santorum winning New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Delaware. He will have lot of pressure to win in Pennsylvania. If he loses there, then I think it is over.

  • Actually, I’d rather argue with Ron Paul fans.

    The Romney bots are becoming indistinguishable from progressives in their hatred for Santorum. And their inability to recognize the slightest of flaws in their guy is on the verge of sending me into a cricket bat flailing frenzy. One bot tried to chalk up Santorum’s margin entirely to evangelical bigotry.

    Because, as we all know, southern evangelicals are renowned for their love feasts with the Roman Church.

  • Maryland is not winner-take-all. Three delegates from each congressional district are awarded, and ten delegates go to the overall winner. Romney will likely win here (though I am gonna be doing my best for Santorum), but there are several districts where Santorum will do well and likely win.

    Other than that, you are correct that we are entering a slightly tougher portion of the contest for Santorum, though I think you are slightly over-rating Romney’s chances in some of the states. My guess is is LA and PA are safer for Santorum than you suggest, and Wisconsin could be in play. If he survives this, then we are back to states that would seem to favor Santorum.

  • Mike, I think your analysis is pretty sound. It’s definitely an uphill battle for Santorum, especially since Gingrich is determined to stay in. Even without him, though, it’s not easy to see RS’ path to victory.

    Romney needs to wake up and see that he’s not entitled to the GOP vote in November just because he gets the nomination. Right now, he seems determined to keep the base at arms length, and he just might get that in return come November 6.

  • Thanks, Dale. Just a few more thoughts: Plainly one cannot assign Santorum’s success with evangelicals exclusively to anti-Morman bigotry, but as a resident of the capital of the South, I think it is a surprisingly significant factor. I have many friends who are evangelicals, and they uniformly report widespread discomfort with Romney’s Momanism. In the end, this discomfort is not likely to hurt Romney too badly in the general election because the evangelical vote is concentrated in states that GOP is almost sure to win regardless. Regarding the South and Catholics, I can confirm that things have changed dramatically in the 30 years I’ve resided here.

    In addition, I don’t see Romney as distancing himself from the base. What he is doing is concentrating on the issue that is most likely to get him elected: the economy, which is also the issue his resume suggests he is most competent to address (i.e., his strong suit). While this may frustrate social conservatives (like myself), I don’t think there is any intention to keep the base at arm’s length — instead he is staying on message. Time will tell whether that works.

    Finally, regarding social issues, I predict Romney would do fine as president. I worry Santorum’s passion would backfire. I do yearn for a president who would replicate W’s consistency and passion for the pro-Life cause, etc., but to be effective that president needs to skilled in persuading others. Santorum has a tin ear for this in my view, and badly so. His election could actually hurt the pro-life cause simply due to the clumsy way he tends to express himself or frame the issues. This is one reason I believe that Romney would be more successful than Santorum in appointing conservative jurists, and this is the single most important role the president plays with respect to abortion and other issues of importance to faithful Catholics.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’d vote for Rick over Obama in a NY minute, but I think Romney would be the better President. I realize mileage varies on this assessment.

    Finally, I would note that not all politicians are particularly ideological or interested in abstract things such as the role of government in matters of social policy as it effects either personal behavior or the economy, especially Republicans who typically are not products of political science schools and career politicians. Romney, like many Republican candidates, is a man of conserative sensibilites and impulses, but he is mostly a practical problem solver, more technician than ideologue. I know many good and solid Catholics like this — we are not all policy wonks.

  • “Romney, like many Republican candidates, is a man of conserative sensibilites and impulses, …”

    I’ll ask again: On what basis can anyone confidently and credibly make this claim on Dullard Flip Rino’s behalf?

    His rhetoric before he decided to run for President at age 60 gives no indication that he is anything other than a self-proclaimed “pro-choice progressive”. His ACTUAL governing record indicates that he is a slightly left-of-center big-government technocrat. When he decided to seek the GOP nomination, suddenly a lifetime in the progressive wing of the GOP gave way to a “conservative” Romney who seems ill-at-ease talking like a conservative and right at home talking like a progressive, big-government technocrat.

    Based on those measures, Romney is easily the least conservative (i.e. most liberal) candidate likely to win the GOP nomination since Gerald Ford.

  • Mike Petrik, I don’t want to cast aspersions on your politically astute partners; however just because a state tends to vote liberal in general elections doesn’t mean the GOP primary will be filled with moderates and liberals. For example in Delaware the establishment Mike Castle was beat by Christine O’Donnel. One would think in the land of DuPonts and Big Bank headquarters Governor Romney would be a natural, don’t bet on it. Don’t believe me, ask Mike Castle.

    In Illinois the adult home of President Obama, he lost more counties in 2008 than he won outside the Chicago Metroland Area (where few Republicans live in the first place.) The bulk of the GOP is in the downstate area and they are hardly the Romney type. Senator Santorum was only by 4 points behind in Illinois, and that was even before he won Alabama and Mississippi.

    Finally New York and California, surely one would think listening to the mainstream media that Romney would win at least 2-1. However, remember that Carl Paladino won the New York GOP primary (for Governor) and he was hardly a moderate (talk about firebrand language.) As for California again like Illinois GOP voters don’t live en masse in the liberal enclaves of San Francisco and Hollywood. GOP numbers tend to cluster in Orange County and San Diego where Romney should do well, but Santorum could equally do well in the Valley outside LA as well as Central California in places like Bakersfield and Fresno. Even if Santorum lost but the loss beat expectations in Illinois, New York and Califorina, there would be more whispers about the Romney candidacy than already exists.

  • Dave,
    Time will tell who is astute or not, but my understanding is that Romney is running very well with suburbanites, and it is those suburbanites who deserted the GOP in 2008, including Chicago suburbanites. You may be right regarding NJ, NY, CA, etc. We’ll know soon enough. In the end, it is a matter of delegates, not whispers.

  • Here’s a story on Hot Air alluding to Gingrich’s big donor possibly cutting him off. This paragraph struck me:

    The question will be whether Adelson himself acknowledges that. He’s already been rumored to have pledged to support Romney if Gingrich didn’t win the nomination. He might just decide to move his very large fundraising capability to Team Romney now and focus on defeating Santorum in the primaries. That would make more sense than keeping Gingrich on life support at this point in the nomination process, especially since the primaries will be shifting away from states where social issues carry as much sway as they do in the Deep South, at least after Louisiana. If Adelson really does decide to move onto the next phase, then Gingrich’s campaign will become moribund whether he suspends it or not.

    It’s possible that Gingrich believes his big donor will move to Romney if he bows out, and that’s what’s keeping him in the race. Gingrich may have made a strategic decision that he’s ultimately be helping Romney, not Santorum, if he quits the race.

    Just something to chew on.

  • I am a Santorum supporter but to call it straight he needs to win Pa like Gingrich needed to win Georgia and Romney Michigan. I have not heard anyone talk about it yet but not sure he can pull a win in Pa.

    The sooner Gingrich gets out the better it is for Santorum.

  • Just to follow-up on an earlier point, there are in fact no winner-take all primaries. Several states allot a chunk of delegates based on the overall winner, and there are several party delegates awarded, but they all basically use a system where delegates are awarded based on congressional districts (three for each c.d. in the state).
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Del.phtml?sort=t

    Okay, I have to amend this, because that link just showed how the state is awarded the number of delegates it has. This link shows how each state awards its delegates. Again, though, it looks like Utah is the only state with a true winner-take-all primary. I really don’t know why NJ, MD, and CA are listed as winner-take-all when clearly they are not.
    http://www.soarclub.com/2012/02/how-delegate-apportionment-works-state-by-state/

  • Mike, you certainly are right Governor Romney does well in traditional suburban areas as he did in Ohio and Michigan. However, California, New York and Illinois are a little different. It is my understanding that the Chicago Metro Area as well as the vast Los Angeles and New York metro areas has many more Democratic suburbanites than do most places. Therefore, the GOP is concentrated in other areas of those particular states as I outlined in my previous post, which is why I don’t believe one can say that Governor Romney will win by a hugh margin in those states. Paul, good point about the former Speaker and Sheldon Adelson. Newt seemed to go out of his way to compliment the former Pennsylvania Senator. I read somewhere that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich shared a very pleasant phone call last night after the primary results.

  • I have not heard anyone talk about it yet but not sure he can pull a win in Pa.

    I believe he was up by a considerable margin last time they released polling numbers, but that was a while back.

  • Just read this so not sure it was such a bad night for Romney:

    However, despite the disappointing results in the two southern states, Romney ended up winning the night anyway — at least in delegates.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/14/just-a-reminder-romney-won-the-delegate-haul-last-night/

    I believe he was up by a considerable margin
    Glad to hear Santorum is up!

  • Santorum is up by 14% over Romney in PA according to Quinnipiac survey dated today. Now I’m going more carefully through the states, and I guess Delaware is also winner-take-all, as is DC. PA is tricky – it looks like it’s basically winner-take-all as well.

  • Chris, I just checked Real Clear Politics and the RCP average for Pennsylvania through the month of February (including one poll which included Monday) has Santorum up by 15.5%. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere, this primary season is about as unpredictable as they come.

    I am encouraged by Santorum’s run thus far and if he can do well and stay standing after April 24th (which is a long way off), he will have a very strong case for the candidacy come the convention.

    In the end, I’m not sure that this whole primary season is really hurting the eventual candidates chances at beating Obama. I don’t see any of the problems being brought up concerning who is more conservative being a problem come November. The distinctions will likely be very clear and can be easily made by either candidate. Then again, I am still a rookie when it comes to discussing politics, so feel free to correct me.

  • I’m not exactly one of those Ron Paul fans you were talking about earlier, however I work at being a true centrist, because I’m sick of the civil war (ineffective government) of the left and right.
    I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate based on his consistent record throughout the years and what he stands for.
    Less government (the government out of our homes and businesses), the constitution, no FED, improve our foreign policy, he believes in liberty and justice and fiscal responsibility, less taxes, etc.
    Obama, Newt, Santorum, Romney…pound for pound are not as good of a candidate as Ron Paul.

  • There is no reason for Newt to get out. The Republican establishment wants Romney, who is perfectly situated to lose to Obama, when gas hits $5.00+ and then suddenly drops to the low threes, high twos following the Republican convention. If Romney manages to pull it out, then we’ll get a new boss, the same as the old boss – Bush!

    Santorum is only winning because he keeps taking words and ideas from Newt. If Newt wasn’t driving the conversation, Santorum wouldn’t have much to say. Additionally, the Democrats are salivating at a Satntorum candidacy, which is why 20% of Santorum’s numbers from last night came from Democrats at the request of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Santorum is the Democrat’s patsy. Wake up people.

    Newt may not be able to win, neither can Santorum and Romney is limping because he’s an empty suit. Newt ensures that Romney can’t gain 1,144 and this goes to convention. After Newt pulls Paul’s people because of his stronger stance on the Fed vis. a vis. the other two, then we’ll have the right ticket. Gingrich/Santorum – the senior and the junior. Rick will be a very effective President of the Senate and can pick up the conservative Catholic mantle in 2020.

    I am hopeful that Newt will win, I am mildly comfortable with Santorum, but I fear that as we approach 40 years of a self-inflicted holocaust, God will give us over to Moloch and Ba’al and we’ll see 4 more years of Obama and an overt persecution of the Church in America. Grab your rosaries, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

  • Newt has no chance. Zero. And I am glad for that because I think the man is ill-suited to be president. Romney has more in common with Bush I than II, but really is different from either. Bush I’s experience and accomplishments were public sector, unlike Romney’s. And Bush II is much more ideological, whereas Romney is more of a pragmatist. Gingrich’s strong suit is that he is thoughtful, insomuch as he is full of thoughts.

  • Yeah, that’s the problem. Why would we want a president who can think? The only one of all five in the race with not only the ability to think strategically, but a record of actuating those strategies is Newt. Of course, I suppose we have to acknowledge that BHO has been effective in bringing Christian persecution to America; however, even principled atheists agree that he has gone beyond the pale.

    Newt rising – just wait and see. If not, get on your knees and beg for Mercy.

  • Santorum is only winning because he keeps taking words and ideas from Newt.

    Amusing, but no.

    Santorum is the Democrat’s patsy.

    Rick Santorum continues to poll evenly with Obama, as does Romney. Even Ron Paul polls well against the President. You know the one candidate that lags all others in head-to-head matchups with Obama? Newt “29% favorability rating” Gingrich. And I say that as someone who far prefers Newt to either Mitt or Paul.

    After Newt pulls Paul’s people because of his stronger stance on the Fed vis. a vis. the other two, then we’ll have the right ticket.

    Yes, their whopping 200 delegates and collective 25% of the vote are gonna take the Republican convention by storm.

    Newt has no chance. Zero.

    This.

  • Why would we want a president who can think?

    Oh, no one doubts Newt can think. He’ll give you 15 different solutions to 10 different problems. I’m just not sure we necessarily want one with ADD.

  • I’m not voting for a dictator, I want a president who can put forth a strategy, articulate it to the people and get Congress to debate it and send him a bill. Does that require 15 different solutions? Perhaps. Better than a one-trick pony.

    Paul – End the Fed, end the wars.

    Santorum – Rebuild the factories and behave like a Catholic while being casual about the Natural Law.

    Romney – Big Business, just be a good consumer and let the adults run the show.

    Obama – There is nothing we can’t solve by killing more babies.

    Come on, you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time. The clock is ticking and when 40 years are up – so are we.

  • you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time.

    According to the polls, no, we don’t. But we’ll let you know as soon as we need a guy to berate the press and bluster during a debate.

  • “Come on, you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time.”

    I have praised Newt several times on this site AK for his elequent denunciations of the manifest bias of the Mainstream Media, and I would certainly prefer him to Obama or to Romney, but he would be massacred in a general election due both to his messed up personal life and to his unerring ability to cut his own throat whenever he appears to be riding high. Newt is one of the most imaginative politicians of our day, and he would come up with a 100 new ideas a day, five of which would even have some merit, and 25 of which would land this country in deep kimchi if ever implemented. He should stick to retirement and writing imaginative alternate histories with William Forschten.

  • The beautiful thing about our Republic (its still a Republic right?) is that we can each make our choices and God decides the outcome. Sometimes it is good, when I was young and first made it to these shores, it was morning in America. Four years ago we were duped into placing an incompetent man who hates our country in charge. Out of the five choices we have I like Dr. Paul because he brings issues to the table that are too often ignored; unfortunately, he’s a libertarian and that may look good at first, but eventually it leads to disaster and probably along the scale of the death knell of the ancien regime. I like Santorum, but I’ve only met him once and he got pissy and flustered because I accused him and his fellow Republicans of losing site of authentic conservatism and especially their profligate spending (which began as soon as they ditched Newt.) I fear that he is unprepared to defeat BHO and is likely to be managed by the Washington-Wall Street establishment. Nevertheless, he is a strong second choice for me.

    The other two, BHO and Romney, will most assuredly be a disaster and we may not survive.

    Newt can do it. Does he even have a chance of winning? Sure, why not. Stranger things have happened. The fact is that we are, at core, a conservative and Christian people. The last time we ran two conservatives against each other was at the end of the first Progressive experiment – in 1924. Reagan was never ever supposed to happen – but, he did. Newt is not Reagan, he’s Newt and in all reality, Reagan could not secure the Republican nomination today. We are a mess and a bold visionary is what is needed to institute a major course-correction.

    Either way, he needs to stay in the race because he makes all the others, even Romney, better. As far as Santorum supporters go, Newt is helping Rick and hurting Romney. That is a good thing. We cannot see tomorrow. This is a strange primary. The rules are quite different, the lay of the land has never been like this and the insider manipulations have never been worse. I want Newt not only because I think he is the best suited, but also just to upset the current order of Demopublican management of America’s decline.

    This should be a two man race – Gingrich and Santorum. The winner of that contest would obliterate Obama.

  • This notion that Newt is a man of ideas is rubbish, but his supporters have said it enough that even his critics have begun to believe it. It’s fundamentally baloney, as Newt would say.

    What are his grand ideas and bold vision?

    A flat tax?

    Henry Hyde said it best about Newt, “Him and his new ideas—there are no new ideas!”

    I don’t know who to support between Santorum and Romney, to be honest. Santorum is such a bad campaigner I have my doubts regarding his ability to beat the president, despite what polls right now say. Romney’s marginally better.

    I despair of democracy.

  • Francis, I pretty much agree with your take, but try to avoid despair, even of democracy — it is still the best form of government save all the others. It’s a fallen world, and we won’t fix that in 2012.

  • “In Illinois, the adult home of President Obama, he lost more counties in 2008 than he won outside the Chicago Metroland Area (where few Republicans live in the first place.) The bulk of the GOP is in the downstate area and they are hardly the Romney type. Senator Santorum was only by 4 points behind in Illinois, and that was even before he won Alabama and Mississippi.”

    This analysis appears to be accurate. Republicans in Cook County or any of the close-in suburbs have been scarce as hen’s teeth for years, though there were and are exceptions (for example, Rep. Henry Hyde came from a suburban Congressional district).

    Meanwhile, Democrats south of I-80 are becoming an increasingly endangered species; Gov. Quinn and, more recently, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (with his proposal that ALL guns owned by state residents should be registered and the owners charged $65 a pop for that dubious privilege) have succeeded in alienating many of the downstate working-class voters that used to be reliably Dem. And voter registration overall in the Chicago area has dropped precipitously in the last few years.

    I think Santorum COULD pull off a win in Illinois if the more liberal/RINO leaning suburbanites north of I-80 decide to sit out the primary because they like none of the candidates being offered, while the more conservative and motivated downstaters turn out in droves.

  • I’m currently reading a Romney bio, and based on that I am pretty confident in the sincerity of Romney’s pro-life convictions. As a church leader, he counseled women against having abortions, at one point showing up at a woman’s hospital room to try to talk her out of having an abortion and telling her about how a relative’s child with Down Syndrome had proven to be a blessing for the family. It’s true that he ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and 2002, but when it came to actually governing he wasn’t able to follow through and govern as a pro-choicer. There are issues on which Romney’s personal instincts seem to be moderate, but abortion is not one of them.

  • Meanwhile, the Weathervane, true to form, tests the political winds before taking a stand on another critical issue:

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-kirkwood-romney-wonders-missour-ee-or-missour-ah/article_e519ea64-6d39-11e1-b1b9-0019bb30f31a.html

  • Well, I’m pretty confident that Romney is a fraud, and will vote accordingly. Which means it’s either Santorum or the Constitution Party for me.

  • “Quite honestly, Romney offers nothing to the GOP electorate other than a warm body and nice hair to put up as an alternative to Barack Obama. Sorry, but given his ACTUAL track record, that ain’t enough to get me to pull the lever for him.”

    See that’s the problem…Conservatives who want Santorum to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s unelectable. He has virtually no chance of winning. A candidate’s electability is inversely proportional to his enemies desire to see him nominated and democrats would love a Santorum nomination.

    Another way to put it is this way, Santorum would make a fine, trustworthy, and authentically Catholic president but since the American public currently has no appetite for such a man conservatives would nominate one at their and the country’s peril.

  • The portion of my comment that you quoted was about Mitt Romney and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Rick Santorum.

    My position on Mitt Romney has been the same since the first time I ever laid eyes on him in 1994. I felt the same way about him in 2008 – even back then, he was the one candidate other than Giuliani for whom I would NEVER cast a vote.

    And I don’t know where you’ve been during this election, but I’ve been saying the same thing about Romney since the days Santorum was pulling single digits and was begging to get asked questions in every debate. I was saying the same thing about Romney when I briefly flirted with supporting Hunstman. I was saying the same thing about Romney for the 5 seconds I considered Pawlenty. I was saying the same thing when I was on board with Rick Perry. In short, I’d be saying the same thing about Dullard Flip Rino REGARDLESS of who his competition was. Your focus on Santorum in response to the portion of my comment that you quoted is a complete non-sequitur and a big fat red herring.

    See that’s the problem…so-called “Conservatives” who want Romney to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s the problem – he can’t close the deal because he’s fundamentally flawed as an at-best “moderate” candidate running for the nomination of a conservative party. He has no chance of winning my vote and virtually no chance of winning the votes of countless other conservatives who simply don’t trust him and believe him to be a liberal fraud.

  • Nice post Jay. You hit (Dim)Mitt Romney right on the head. He is a fake. He is not trustworthy. He is not conservative and sadly, neither is most of the Republican Party; hence why he is the ‘favorite’.

    We are close to a tipping point and Christians in general and Catholics specifically need to be very careful for whom we vote. Persecution is building in our land and it is not from any single man. It comes from a radical secular establishment and they use pawns like BHO and Romney to execute it on their behalf. To avoid this you need a faithful Christian or possibly a libertarian, preferable a Constitutionalist rather than an anarchist.

    Romney will lose the ‘conservative’ vote. I know that I am leaning third party if we are stupid enough to make that empty suit the nominee. I’d prefer any of the other three.

  • so-called “Conservatives” who want Romney to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s the problem

    1. THE problem is that the federal government’s net borrowing is around about 9% of domestic product; the incumbent President disregarded the solutions a bipartisan national commission offered to repair the problem and offered nothing to replace said solution; and the competitors for his job have offered no worthwhile plans either.

    2. A secondary problem is that three of the principal candidates to replace them have never supervised anything other than their office staff and the fourth has for 18 years been given to bouts of blatant opportunism and no one knows what he really thinks (though we can be fairly sure he is not a ‘dullard’).

    Wunnerful wunnerful.

  • “Romney will lose the ‘conservative’ vote. I know that I am leaning third party if we are stupid enough to make that empty suit the nominee”

    He certainly may lose the “cut off your nose” conservatives. Having done that too many times myself I no longer have a nose to cut off.

    This election is neither about Romney nor any bona fide conservative. The election is squarely about Obama and for that we gratefully have the opportunity to replace him. The fact that some replacements are further to the right than others is picking nits with extreme prejudice.

  • He certainly may lose the “cut off your nose” conservatives.

    No, he is going to lose the “I don’t want to replace Obama with Obama-lite” conservatives.

    You know, Romney backers have had months to make the case for Romney, and in that time all you have managed to say – repeatedly – is that he is better than Obama and he is more electable than the others. The first point might be true – but then again who isn’t? – and the latter point is becoming more and more laughable as each day passes.

    Also, it also not enough to make the election just about the incumbent. There needs to be at least some enthusiasm for the challenger. Otherwise we might be wrapping up President Kerry’s second term.

  • The entirety of Romney the Very Canny Businessman’s contract with conservatives (of every stripe) reads thusly:

    “Vote for me, and I won’t be Obama.”

    Which he will adhere to to the last letter. Legally and ontologically, he will not be Barack Obama.

    Paid in full.

    Which means that after he gets elected, he will be able to indulge his three proven political principles: pursuit of elective office (in 2016), indulging his craving for bipartisanship, and flinching in the face of/pandering to the left (See Minimum Wage, Indexing of; cf. “Scheme, Perry”).

    Why, he can’t do anything about the fiscal/entitlements nightmare–at least not in an election year, or the year before an election year. He’d offend the volatile swing voters to whom he actually is beholden. So, sorry about that. Ditto social issues, too. But here’s his e-mail to March for Life-rs:

    “Dear You People:

    Abortion is rather less than ideal, as a majority of polled likely voters currently agree, the margin of error being plus-minus three point five percent….”

    But at least as the country careens toward Greece/Weimar, the conservatives who voted for him can accept the solace that he is indeed not Obama.

    If the only thing that keeps the country from careening to Hell is Mitt Romney, then the Republic is dead already.

  • Its always interesting when conservatives disagree. In principle and on most if not close to all of the issues I rather fancy most everything that is written on this here blog, by you gentlemen. Although however one might agree with such principles, in the end it is the application and the “getting there” which serves as the source of disputes.

    I like Santorum. I don’t like Romney except for his usefulness to ouster BO and will not be an apologist for him, per se. To that extent it is prudential judgment as to who is more electable in any given set of circumstances. Current political climate dictates the authentically conservative Catholic will not win. Its about the economy.

    In any event it would behoove conservatives to stand behind the eventual nominee come the general election if the goal is to preserve our nation from the existing attack from within.

  • To that extent it is prudential judgment as to who is more electable in any given set of circumstances. Current political climate dictates the authentically conservative Catholic will not win. Its about the economy.

    Again, though, actual results and polling do not bear this out. Santorum polls just a smidgen below Romney in head-to-head matchups with Obama. When you throw in Santorum’s track record of winning difficult elections in his House and Senate races in Pennsylvania, and the fact that he is staying close to Romney in elections despite being outspent by him by several orders of magnitude, the idea that Santorum is somehow certain to lose compared to Romney just holds absolutely no water.

  • It is too depressing to think about.

  • Paul, I respect people who come to a different calculation. If it helps you, prudentially speaking, I live in a State that hasn’t voted for the Republican candidate since 1988. So, my decision on Romney makes no difference.

  • FWIW, I live in a bluer state than Dale, so ditto for my decision. That said, I don’t know that my calculus would change if I lived ten miles to my west.

  • Blackadder,

    If Romney is truly pro-life and he chose to run as a pro-abort (I’ve seen his speeches and he was PASSIONATELY pro-abort) then doesn’t that reveal a certain flexibility with principle and a casual relationship with truth? Do we really want to place our trust in a guy like that?

  • I live in THE swing state, and that fact has absolutely no bearing on my decision. (In fact, in a sort of perverse way, I’m rather relishing the fact that Romney could really use my vote and that I’m going to withhold it from him.)

  • I too reside in a mainly blue state, to commiserate with Paul Z. & Dale, so this discussion is really for political banter with fellow conservatives. I’d much prefer hearing anyone’s argument here than elsewhere.

    I’m reticent to use polls this far ahead of the election but since you raised the issue Paul Z., Real Clear Politics has Romney beating Obama in at least a few polls whereas Santorum shows no such advantage. What polls are you referencing?

    Also for Paul Z, Dale, Jay or anyone else for that matter, when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner? Do you think he advances his message convincingly?

  • If the only thing that keeps the country from careening to Hell is Mitt Romney, then the Republic is dead already.

    I appreciate your point. Just want to point out the following:

    1. He has experience with re-structurings.

    2. George Bush the Elder was quite adept at making himself appear opportunistic and silly. He performed satisfactorily in office, though not without error (e.g. David Souter). He may have been the most able chief executive we have had since Gen. Eisenhower retired to Gettysburg.

  • when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner?

    He would have been the optimal choice among the five in 1992 or 1996 or 2000. Now, not so sure.

  • “He would have been the optimal choice among the five in 1992 or 1996 or 2000. Now, not so sure.”

    Art- hadn’t thought of it that way, but that rings true.

  • I have about 2 minutes, so can’t look up the source, but I believe it was Rasmussen that had Romney up 2 and Santorum minus 1 on Obama. May have been Gallup. Most of the polls I’ve seen have basically had the races fairly tight.

  • Here is a poll in Florida that has them both down by a couple to Obama. You’re right about polls being meaningless at this point, but they do suggest that that Santorum is not unelectable, at least no more so than Romney.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/15/rasmussen-obama-edging-romney-santorum-in-florida/

  • when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner? Do you think he advances his message convincingly?

    1. On the whole, yes, he does. With the sad exception of the last debate, where he froze a bit in the headlights. He’s even better on the stump–for example, when my oldest son and I saw him in Michigan in February. A 45 minute speech about the economy as an organic whole, with references to the mediating institutions in civil society–it was a tour de force. Even my 9 year old son remembers the Keystone Pipeline and oil discussion to this day.

    But I will acknowledge he gets distracted and wounds himself needlessly with ricochets.

    2. He does on the stump, unfiltered. His discipline on the whole has gotten better, if still imperfect.

    I’m not going to pretend he was my first choice, or even my fourth. My first didn’t run, and the remaining three flamed out.

    He’s the best of a weak field, and under no delusions that the left can be made to like him, which saves time.

  • Art:

    The restructuring specialist is the best argument for him, and one I can instinctively buy.

    But then I go back to the fact this is Mitt Romney we’re talking about, a man who has never been a model of walking-the-tightrope political courage.

    In fact, when I keep hearing the Romney boosters’ attacks on Santorum, and to a lesser extent even Gingrich, my rebuttal is “That is a great argument–or rather, would be, if your candidate was Bobby Jindal. But he’s not–your guy is *Mitt Romney*.”

  • My observations of Santorum have been via the debates with occasional clips of him talking to the media. I either haven’t seen this tour de force side of him or just am looking for something else. Thanks for your observations Dale.

    He will be at my alma mater on Friday evening so maybe having the chance to see and hear him in person will provide another perspective.

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

Of Encyclopedia Britannica and Buggywhips

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

6 Responses to Of Encyclopedia Britannica and Buggywhips

  • My parents bought a complete set of Brittanica around 1960 or so (before either of us kids were born) and then purchased the Book of the Year supplement faithfully every year from 1961 through about 1988 or 1989. The Books of the Year were actually among my favorites to read as a kid. I would imagine those have fallen by the wayside as well now that everything is available online.

  • Gone or disappearing like Pan Am, TWA, the Fuller Brush Man, pay and rotary phones, typewriters, stick ball, Oldsmobile and Pontiac, Plymouth, p-shooters, the nuclear family, free air at gas stations and Bonomo Turkish Taffy.

  • Not only the passing of encyclopedias and buggy whips– but local libraries!
    Our weekly trip to town to the county library is a wonderful memory for me– I took a big stack home each week as did my older sister and my mother– then I read mine and theirs; then we went back again and got some more… The library used to be like church in a way– we had to have different behavior when we went in there. No talking–very respectful of the place and the people. And the checkout experience — having the very kind but very official lady in charge — having my own card to be stamped and recorded, being responsible for these treasures for a week..

  • I can’t wait for the solar flare that wipes out the internet. If I survive the ensuing crash it will be fun watching folks trying to find printed books reference books with the “content” the desperately need, searching for slide rules, typewriter &c . . .

    MWAHhahahaha!!!

  • Helpdesk calling video – so funny – & the manual. Memories of Wordprocessing revolution and, um, filing … or today 3/14/12 with so much capability on my lap and I can’t find my toolbars that got lost in an update, not even with online ‘manual’.
    Joe Green: Carbon copies, IBM Selectric, TV antennas, no plastic, and perking pots of coffee, doctors making house calls, bank books.
    Our neighbors had the beautiful Encyclopedia Britannica. We had Funk & Wagnalls and Lincoln Library, still good reading, but Brittanica was deep with great illustrations. Sort of like A students v. B students. I worry about ‘what if’ this untouchable information highway gets closed down. Maybe I’ll finally get to find work as a scribe.

Under Southern Skies

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

Rick Santorum’s campaign has been truly remarkable.  From being a defeated two term Senator from Pennsylvania, on a Quixotic no cash campaign for President which no observer, including the writer of this post, thought he had any chance of doing anything with other than being an asterisk, he has become the leader of Republican conservatives opposed to the nomination of Romney, aka the Weathervane.  Last night’s dual victories in Alabama and Mississippi underlined this.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Under Southern Skies

  • Not only among the other candidates, but also in this alligator-infested swamp. His drive and determination remind me of the Hunters of Kentucky post from last week.

  • I think last night highlighted one thing for the American voter; the character of each candidate. Romney won’t admit defeat gracefully, so he fled the scene. Gingrich took credit for Santorum’s victory saying ‘We showed them’. And RIck Santorum first thanked God for his victory, then his wife, children and supporters.
    Guess which of these men I support?

  • While Santorum’s campaign has been remarkable, it has more to do with circumstances than it does with Santorum’s ability as a candidate. He is the last not-Romney standing. Newt, despite a short lived surge, was never going to overcome his baggage.

    The staying power of the not-Romney campaign waged by a significant portion of the conservative base with Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin as its main megaphones is even more more remarkable. They gave voice to what many in the base feel that the GOP establishment is trying to shove Romney down their throats.

    There are of course other reasons why the not-Romney sentiment has lasted. A good part of it has to do with some of his gaffes (I’m not concerned about the very poor -) and his being a rather boring personality to name of couple of things. There is also the issue of his being a Mormon. This is especially true in the south. Don’t think for a minute that a Mormon is not going to have trouble with southern Evangelical protestant conservatives.

Lysistrata and the Libs

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

 

                                     LYSISTRATA:     There are a lot of things about us women    

  That sadden me, considering how men

See us as rascals.        

CALONICE: As indeed we are!

Apparently some liberal women are calling for a sex strike , stating that if the Government does not coerce all employers to provide health insurance policies that cover contraceptives, that somehow translates into their inability to purchase contraceptives on their own dime.  With that reasoning, I think it appropriate that they are lifting the idea of a boycott of sex from Lysistrata, a comedy by Aristophanes, that envisioned women in Athens and Sparta refusing to pay their marital debt until their men made peace.  Of course nothing like this occurred in the actual history of the Peloponnesian War, just as no one is preventing liberal women from  carrying out their project of making certain that there will be fewer of their descendants in the body politic in the years to come. 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Lysistrata and the Libs

  • Pansies. If they’re going to sacrifice and commit, then it should be permanent or until they get what they want. Sorry for the redundancy.

  • As a single man, the denial of “sexual favors” from liberal women (otherwise known as a “sex strike”) matters not one wit. Single people are supposed to be celibate because they are not married. A condition otherwise than that is called fornication, hence Sandra Fluke.

  • So does this mean liberal women are actually promoting — gasp! — ABSTINENCE?

  • I’m of the mind that sex with a liberal woman would be more of a punishment than a reward.

  • I publicly concur with “The Larry D”. BTW, have you noticed that conservative women look beautiful, but liberal women look like (what’s that phrase someone used here at TAC yesterday?) “long in the tooth harpies”? Again, it goes back to that old adage: “Sin not only makes you stupid, but ugly as well.”

  • “I’m of the mind that sex with a liberal woman would be more of a punishment than a reward.”

  • I want to know why these women are being so militant about their own contraceptive coverage, but not one single person has suggested that men also deserve free contraceptives under this massive healthcare bill that will already cripple our health care industry. It takes two to tango and one sex ought not have privileges over the other, if their liberal thinking were to follow through. So, imagine, we can cover all sexual activities for people unwilling to take responsibilty in their lives and their sexual escapades.
    I find the mindset of these folks who think that they are somehow owed free contraceptives, to be very troubling. I find that there are more and more entitlement loving Americans, and it makes me wonder if we will still be a free people when my grandchildren are in their adulthood.

  • These “women” are nuts. I feel like I’m living in the 60s and any time a huge bonfire for bra-burning is going to breakout…

  • I’m afraid that bonfire will be for the Constitution; these “women” don’t give a hoot about the finest document ever made, since the bible of course!

  • A sex strike is exactly what America has needed for half a century. Its called abstinence.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it
  • Irony doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

Obama Losing Public Opinion War Over HHS Mandate

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

 

 

 

My favorite liberal pro-abort columnist, Mickey Kaus, is a very honest man, and will never let his ideology stand in the way of a keen analysis of the events of the day.  That is one of the reasons why I stop by each day to read his Kaus Files.  The other reasons are that he is witty and concise.  Here is his take on a recent poll in the New York Times:

Here’s what the NYT‘s story on its latest poll told readers:

In recent weeks, there has been much debate over  the government’s role in guaranteeing insurance coverage for contraception,  including for those who work for religious organizations. The poll found  that women were split as to whether health insurance plans should cover the  costs of birth control and whether employers with religious objections  should be able to opt out. [E.A.]

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they  were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for  all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees  or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive  53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or  university.”

That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men  favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously  affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25  points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors  allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated  institutions are involved.

These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude  that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over  mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public  debate on the question. That’s a conclusion the Times story effectively  hides from readers.

It’s also one possible explanation for Obama’s otherwise somewhat mystifying  overall drop in approval during the period–March 7-11–when the poll was in the  field. But not an approved explanation.

Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas  prices.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Obama Losing Public Opinion War Over HHS Mandate

  • There is hope, but not for the main stream media.

  • Donald, I like the way you refer to Kaus as a pro-abort. This should become part of our lexicon. I’m going to do my part to use this as much as possible.

    Here’s a sample:
    He’s a balding, pro-abort, Yankee fan who served in Vietnam.

    I love it.

  • daledog –
    it makes perfect sense; “I’m not pro-slavery– in fact, I’m personally opposed! However, I would never try to impose that view on my neighbor, especially not when it comes to something as deeply personal has his imported concubines.”

  • “Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas prices.”

    What’s funny is how this is the same explanation for many in the GOP fiscal wing and the punditry. I recently witnessed a nice Jewish Republican lady claim that the HHS mandate was a “trap” the Dems had created for Republicans to distract from the real issues.

  • Apparently, the geniuses around Obama thought this was a facile means to twist the pro-life message to make a trap for fools. Howz that working for ya liberals?

    Libs are just too smart!

    Endless wars

    Drone assassinations

    Gitmo open

    No real jobs

    Unemployment still higher than Obama promised

    Skyrocketing food prices

    Skyrocketing gasoline prices

    Obamacare – centralized harm to 85% of Americans’ health care

    HHS mandate

    Straw meets camel’s back: HHS mandate causes Cardinal Dolan coincidentally to identify the massive feces sandwich which is Obamacare.

  • Something must be cooking to reel in that opinion for the next seven months.

    Meanwhile:

    (from the Novena to St. Anthony of Padua)
    St. Anthony’s Prayer:
    Lord Jesus, bind us to You and to our neighbor with love. May our hearts not be turned away from You. May our souls not be deceived nor our talents or minds enticed by allurements of error so that we may never distance ourselves from Your love. Thus may we love our neighbor as ourselves with strength, wisdom, and gentleness. With Your help, You who are blessed throughout all ages. Amen.

    Responsory of St. Anthony:
    Priest: If then you ask for miracles,
    death, error, all calamities, the leprosy and demons fly, and health succeeds infirmities.

    All: The sea obeys, and fetters break, and lifeless limbs you do restore.
    While treasures lost are found again, when young and old your aid implore.

    Priest: All dangers vanish at your prayer, and deepest needs are cared for, too.
    Let those who know your power proclaim, Let Paduans say, ‘These are of you’.

    Novena Prayer to St. Anthony:
    Holy St. Anthony, you are the consolation of so many people. We come to invoke your help, confident of experiencing your goodness and power. Pray for us to the Father of mercies, that we may obtain the graces we need for ourselves and for our loved ones ….

    and if we pray for miracles for our Church?

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: OBAMA & THE CATHOLIC CHURCH | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Father Higgins: Remember the Ashes and Top Articles of the Week | St. Peter's List

What Happened

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

For about five hours this morning ThePulp.it, The American Catholic, and Ignitum Today websites went down.  I want to make clear that we were not hacked, we did not get viruses planted, nothing of those natures.  What I can say is that precautions have been taken to prevent such an incident from occurring again.

I want to apologize to all our readers and visitors and affirm our dedication to providing you the content you all have expected from us on these websites.

Enjoy!

Tito Edwards

Continue reading...

8 Responses to What Happened

Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

 

In the spirit of the Obama Worship Day at Notre Dame in 2009, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Gary Cutting has a recent article in the New York Times, the high worship rag for all liberal apostate Catholics, in which he explains why Catholics should not pay attention to the Bishops and the silly fuss they are making over the HHS Mandate, which, among other things, rips to shreds freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment.  I was going to give the article a fisking to remember, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has beaten me to it:

Roman Catholics will be interested to learn that Gary Gutting, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and someone who claims to be a Catholic, recently discovered that the Reformation is finally over and that the Protestants won:

What interests me as a philosopher — and a Catholic — is that virtually all parties to this often acrimonious debate have assumed that the bishops are right about this, that birth control is contrary to “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” The only issue is how, if at all, the government should “respect” this teaching.

Good question since Gutting thinks that Catholics have pretty much plowed it under and sowed the furrows with nuclear waste.

As critics repeatedly point out, 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.  The response from the church, however, has been that, regardless of what the majority of Catholics do and think, the church’s teaching is that birth control is morally wrong.  The church, in the inevitable phrase, “is not a democracy.”   What the church teaches is what the bishops (and, ultimately, the pope, as head of the bishops) say it does.

The bishops aren’t the boss of us!!

But is this true?  The answer requires some thought about the nature and basis of religious authority.  Ultimately the claim is that this authority derives from God.  But since we live in a human world in which God does not directly speak to us, we need to ask, Who decides that God has given, say, the Catholic bishops his authority?

Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

It makes no sense to say that the bishops themselves can decide this, that we should accept their religious authority because they say God has given it to them.  If this were so, anyone proclaiming himself a religious authority would have to be recognized as one.  From where, then, in our democratic, secular society does such recognition properly come?  It could, in principle, come from some other authority, like the secular government.  But we have long given up the idea (“cujus regio, ejus religio”) that our government can legitimately designate the religious authority in its domain.  But if the government cannot determine religious authority, surely no lesser secular power could.  Theological experts could tell us what the bishops have taught over the centuries, but this does not tell us whether these teachings have divine authority.

Out: cujus regio, ejus religio.  In: vox populi vox dei.

In our democratic society the ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer. It follows that there is no alternative to accepting the members of a religious group as themselves the only legitimate source of the decision to accept their leaders as authorized by God.  They may be wrong, but their judgment is answerable to no one but God.  In this sense, even the Catholic Church is a democracy.

You know that joke I like to make about how in the future, everybody, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, will be an Episcopal bishop for fifteen minutes?  As far as Gutting is concerned, every single Roman Catholic is a bishop right now.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

  • Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

    Oh, it’s on the tip of my tongue…begins with a J …. Jim… John …. Joe… Jesse… Jesus!! That’s it.

  • What I read in here is all true. There is nothing other than the Church that claims the Bishops have the authority of Christ to teach in the name of Christ. However, it is stated in the Bible (which was given to us through Tradition passed to us through the Church), that these men were given the authority by Christ himself. Of course, one would have to have Faith in order to “buy in” to that system. Otherwise, it does all become about power and autonomy and the most popular belief (as we have seen work to the great demise of most protestant faith traditions). Do I believe that the Bishops have the authority to teach and have consistently lead the Church through the past 2000 years by the direction of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No? The evidence certainly would point in favor of the constant teachings of the Church, but it still requires faith and a bit of humility. Unfortunately, those are two qualities this world despises. This professors is logically correct in his argument, saying that however, logic and reason can take you only so far. At some point, you must either ascent to the truth or you must deny it. It’s a shame so many choose to deny it, but that doesn’t make it less true.

  • Remember, the whole point of President Caiaphas’ efforts, and those of his infernal minions, is to cause the Church’s charities, medical facilities and social services to close, so they can take over.

    That makes Professor Gutting (ironic, that) a Fascist pig, since anything which does not stand in defense of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause then stands against it. Any attempt to weaken the Church or divide its members is an attack by the powers of darkness and oppression.

    Surely, a Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame cannot be stupid enough to not see what he’s doing. Thus, it must logically follow that he has consciously and purposefully enlisted in the ranks of the Godless totalitarians, seeking by intent to ruin the Church and eviscerate America in the process. By this overt action he could, and should, be excommunicated.

    What will it take to start the excommunications en masse? What will it take to have the Bishops stand up and slice these forked-tonged serpents to tiny bits? Why so long?

  • I have recently read somewhere that these “so-called” catholics have excommunicated themselves….a pattern that has come about perhaps since Vatican 2. The article I cite did put forth the idea that the Bishops were very careful not to sound too dogmatic! ha ha…..I, for one, would love to hear a Bishop or Cardinal speak out about our high profile catholics (small c)…Let Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sibelius, and others of their ilk be called on the carpet…I hope I am not sounding judgemental, but it might be the one of the jobs of the hierarchy to excommunicate people. The time has come for those closest to the Lord to take a stand!

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • What are Catholics to think about their bishops when they preach the evil of abortion and glad hand the purveyors of it. I’m talking about their cozy relationship with the democrats. When I witnessed Ted Kennedys funeral and the reception of his casket by the Cardinal of DC I wanted to puke. The excuse for overlooking his evil was the social justice babble. Once again they threw their weight behind the dems with obamacare and are surprised by what came out of that public financing of abortion. These are highly educated men how can they be so foolish to have trusted the radical community organizer in the white house to produce a clean reasonable bill. Do they think now that abortion is the only horror in this bill, have they not figured out that the handicapped the elderly and those babies with handicaps that were lucky enough to make it into the world will have reduced medical care as in the eyes of some of his advisors are of little use to the state. There are some good thoughtful bishops who adhere to church teaching and then there are the others unfortunately the ones usually quoted by the media are the misguided ones.

  • Is the following quote pertinent to both clerics and laity?

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. To be sure, the motive behind their tolerance is that they may suffer no hurt in the possession of those temporal goods which virtuous and blameless men may lawfully enjoy; still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.” from St. Augustine, The City of God.

  • Finite minds need infinite wisdom.

  • JANE a. Sebelius was instructed to not present herself for Holy Communion by her bishop and Pelosi was called to the Vatican. Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Benedict XVI remains private. I think Pelosi and Sebelious do so much bellowing about being Catholic because they are not Catholic and have been chained. Pelosi and Sebelius are like chained devils, rattling their chains.