Internet Hitler No Fan of Paul Ryan, But Rick Santorum Is

Tuesday, August 14, AD 2012

The usual caveats as to language applies to the above Internet Hitler video.  (What else can one expect from internet Hitler?)  Taking a momentary pit stop in my vacation traveling.  I note with bemusement the debate that has erupted on the blog in regard to Paul Ryan and the attempted questioning of his Catholicism.  I find that utterly bizarre.  In the primaries I supported Rick Santorum.  Santorum has enthusiastically endorsed Romney’s pick of Ryan. 

Here is a video below from earlier this year in which Santorum praised Ryan’s budget, with the caveat that it did not go far enough in cuts:

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Internet Hitler No Fan of Paul Ryan, But Rick Santorum Is

  • Pit stop eloquence:

    ” Taking a momentary pit stop in my vacation traveling. I note with bemusement the debate that has erupted on the blog in regard to Paul Ryan and the attempted questioning of his Catholicism. I find that utterly bizarre. In the primaries I supported Rick Santorum. Santorum has enthusiastically endorsed Romney’s pick of Ryan.

    I find it difficult however to see how anyone could view Santorum as a reasoned proponent of conservatism and a champion of Catholic positions on the social issues, and also view Ryan as anathema. That simply does not make any sense at all.”

    Thank you, Donald McClarey, for helpful, prioritizing, and clear (Clar?) words with talking pictures at this point – and so soon after Sat. 8/11 at 9:00 and so sadly balloons popping during vacation.

    Enjoy. Stay out of the Klingon place. I liked your Vacation 2012 cartoon.

  • He also said the bishops were wrong. He also was supporting a bill that was on the table at the time for passage, while his own plan as a presidential candidate was much different. He didn’t want to just cut taxes on the wealthy because they are wealthy. He had a zero rate for manufacturers so there would be incentive for job creation. Unfortunately, the Randians in the party believe that to be “unfair” (to whom? the wealthy?) and opposed it.

  • PM, the social issues are now off the table with the blessing of Paul Ryan.

  • To Lisa Graas et al concerned with the Social Issues:

    Social issues have never and will never be on the table for those that favor the current administration. The ObamaCare cop-out by Catholic Democrat Congressman was the final proof of that.

    For those opposed to the current administration who keep social issues as a top priority, we need to remind ourselves that if we don’t rescue the republic from this administration, which is openly hostile to the U.S. Constitution, then there won’t be any country left to convince about social issues. Like Merry said to Pippin in The Lord of the Rings – if we don’t win this fight, “there isn’t going to be a Shire.”

  • “He also said the bishops were wrong.”

    They are. That earns him points in my book.

  • I second the motion by Bonchamps!

  • Anyone who votes for Obama is a “useful idiot”.

  • Anyone who votes for either party is a useful idiot.

  • @CHRIS IN MARYLAND- the progressives in the democratic party have proven that social
    positions ARE important to them, everything from open gays in the military, gay marriage,
    unlimited abortion on demand and stricter gun control. that’s what makes this choice so difficult. Mitt Romney is NO social conservative and for that matter, neither is Paul Ryan.
    But this should be clear to anyone who follows politics. There is a split in the Rebuplican
    party, between CINO (conservative in name only) aided and abetted by liberterains. and social conservatives. It doesn’t take a Dick Morris to see which faction controls the Republican party. It is time for a more conservative socially and more financially responsible third party.

  • Sorry Edmund – Paul Ryan has a 100% rating on Pro-Life issues AND the liberal Bishops came out against his budget.

    Jeb Bush = RINO/CINO…YES. Ryan…please… Come to think of it…maybe you work for Jeb Bush?

    On the other hand, its always in season to encourage liberals to vote again for Ralph Nader.

  • Paul Ryan abstained on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

  • I think Lisa is really David Axelrod…sorry David…I’ve had enough of Chicago.

  • Calling me names, questioning my intentions, etc., really helps to shore up your reputation for being a charitable person. No, wait…

  • “There is a split in the Rebuplican party, between CINO (conservative in name only) aided and abetted by liberterains. and social conservatives. It doesn’t take a Dick Morris to see which faction controls the Republican party. It is time for a more conservative socially and more financially responsible third party.”

    Oddly, we Liberterains are haltingly trying to create a third party ourselves, present crisis notwithstanding, that looks forward to a time when the Federal government returns to its proper, Consitutionally-defined role of limited and enumerated oversight of specific areas of the nation’s business, leaving the rest to states, municipalities and we the people ourselves.

    Such a party has a slim chance of ever becoming an effective body, though, in that its raison d’etre is its own obsolescence, a cause that’s unworkably oxymoronic in a political sense.

    Just remember that there is a world of difference between Liberty and license. While neither desire to be externally governed, that is where the similarity ends and the paths diverge in diametrically opposite directions. Liberty informs the individual person with self-government whereas license negates government of any sort. Liberty and The Church are essentially consubstantial because they both require and reinforce correct personal action without coersion. Where The Church leads, Liberty follows; where Liberty thrives, The Church is a City on a Hill. The fascist Left uses license as its primary weapon to create the vaccum of chaos which then necessitates corecively imposed order; it must nullify The Church in order to achieve its goals. Liberty is sine qua non to our nation’s continued existence. License is the poison that will destroy us. Know the difference.

  • Lisa continues with her false witness against Paul Ryan. And I continue to say shame on Lisa for distorting the record and character of a faithful, practicing Catholic. Go off with your friend George Soros into the political wilderness and leave us alone.

  • I see on Lisa’s website that Lisa is a big supporter, or something, of Sarah Palin. Palin holds the EXACT SAME viewpoints on fiscal policy as Paul Ryan. In fact, she was one of the FIRST politicians in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to endorse Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to fix Social Security and Medicare.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009322838245628.html

  • I guess Sarah Palin hates the poor and wants to gut all welfare programs, too. What a Randian!

  • Bonchamps says:
    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 A.D. at 3:29pm (Edit)
    “He also said the bishops were wrong.”

    They are. That earns him points in my book.

    Agreed.

    The USCCB– which is usually what folks mean by “the Bishops,” even though it’s not exactly right– being wrong in their totally non binding ideas isn’t exactly news.

    Same way I like GK Chesterton, but I’m not sure I’d dive right into the financial philosophies of someone who the only thing I know of his economic powers is rumors he was so bad he had to wire for money to take the train. Doesn’t make him a bad Catholic, just not someone you want to follow blindly for budget stuff.

  • Foxfier: Exactly!! How much training in economics or budget issues have the Bishops had? For that matter, does anybody posting here have one tenth of the knowledge Ryan has about the federal deficient and the economic disaster that is right ahead of us?

    Lisa, you don’t seem to grasp that if the entitlement programs are not reformed, there will be nothing for anybody when the government runs out of money. And stop this business about the “poor.” Yes, there are genuinely needy and we should help them. There are also people scamming the system for every cent they can get. (A well-known scam around here involves people using food stamps to get bags of frozen lobster tails and shrimp and other expensive items and then selling the lobster tails at half market price.) Is that “social justice?” Does Catholic charity demand that I be OK with that? Are only rich people capable of the sin of greed?

The Dorr Rebellion

Tuesday, August 14, AD 2012

One of the major developments in American history in the first half of the Nineteenth Century was the extension of the franchise to all adult white men.  By 1841, Rhode Island was the only state that had not removed the property requirement for voting by adult white men.  Years of frustration in failed attempts to remove the property requirement through legislation burst out into one of the more unusual rebellions in US history.  Led by Thomas W. Dorr, a so-called People’s Convention was held in October 1841 which drafted a new constitution for Rhode Island.  The convention had not been authorized by the Rhode Island legislature.  Opponents of Dorr and his followers in the state legislature drafted a new constitution for Rhode Island which they designated the Freeman’s Constitution.  This constitution made some concessions to broadening the franchise.  It was defeated in the legislature by followers of Dorr.

A statewide referendum called by Dorr approved the constitution which had been drafted by the People’s Convention.  In 1842 Rhode Island witnessed two sets of election with two competing legislatures and two governors: Thomas W. Dorr and Samuel W. King.

The Dorr forces attempted an attack on the arsenal in Providence on May 19, 1842 and were routed, most, including Dorr, fleeing the state.  The Rhode Island legislature approved a new Constitution which was approved by a referendum.  The new constitution extended the franchise to all adult white men who could pay a poll tax of $1.00.

In the case of Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on which of the competing Rhode Island governments had been the legitimate government, holding that such a decision was a political one and not subject to judicial determination:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Assertion without Evidence

  • Wow. Well, where do I begin? How about removing the word “warpath” to describe what I’m doing? http://catholicbandita.com/romneys-ryan-pick-drives-the-wedge-between-catholics-deeper/

    Can we start there? Remove “warpath”? Thanks.

  • Ryan’s pick divided Catholics because Catholics like you choose to distort Ryan’s record and turn him into something he is not. Therefore your post is something of a tautology.

  • I don’t know what Lisa Graas said, but are there any major thinkers, pundits or experts who have expressed silly reservations like the ones you describe?

    Charlie

  • Will you not remove the word “warpath” in reference to what I am doing?

  • Well, it depends on how you define “major.” Truthfully, this is probably not a major concern outside of the Catholic blogosphere, and even then only a certain subset of it. In fact, that’s part of why I find the claim that he’s being disingenuous about his feelings with regard to Rand to be a little perplexing. Of all the things a politician is going to lie about, why this? Somehow I don’t think Paul Ryan is so concerned with how a subset of a subset of a subset of the population feels about Ayn Rand that he would feel the need to change his tune.

  • I guess you are not going to remove the word “warpath” you use to describe what I am doing so I am going to give this post the attention it deserves. None.

  • I’m sure it won’t ultimately matter, but edit made.

  • Some people like to be naysayers. There is not a single politician in the country who is as smart and as good on economic and social issues and no slouch on national security.
    I don’t know anyone who represents a cause or a base who is criticizing this pick.

    Check out this piece from Viguerie’s newsletter:

    Social Conservative Leaders Laud Paul Ryan’s Pro-Life Record
    By CHQ Staff | 8/13/12

    Paul Ryan’s 100% right-to-life voting record and his strong and principled opposition to the abortion drug and contraception mandates in President Obama’s health care law are encouraging signs for social conservatives that with Ryan on the ticket a Romney/Ryan administration will be strongly pro-life and pro-family.

    Pro-lifersMarjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told LifeNews that, “By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children. A longtime pro-life advocate and a strong fiscal conservative, Congressman Ryan has insisted that there can be no ‘truce’ when it comes to advancing the rights of the unborn and achieving fiscal responsibility. He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney’s campaign.”

    The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins released a statement praising Ryan saying, “As a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, he has been a defender of religious expression in the public square. Paul Ryan has spoken out strongly against President Obama’s abortion drug and contraception mandates as an affront to religious liberty. He has articulately described how the President’s government takeover of health care has pushed aside our First Amendment right of religious freedom.”

    Gary Bauer, chairman of Campaign for Working Families praised the choice of Ryan saying, “I congratulate Paul Ryan and look forward to the policy debates. This is a selection that sends a strong, clear, unambiguous message of a conservative vision for America, from ending the explosive growth of government, reducing the explosive growth of the debt and instead committing to the explosive growth of the American economy. This shows the kind of talented and experienced team Governor Mitt Romney will put together that will work for American exceptionalism.

    Americans United for Life Action President Charmaine Yoest called Ryan’s selection “a bold choice of an unambiguous defender of the need for a pro-life vision for America.”

    Ryan has a 100% pro-life voting record on all roll call votes scored by National Right to Life throughout his entire career in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since being sworn-in in 1999 he supported the pro-life position on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and most recently the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, among others.

    As a principled supporter of pro-life legislation Congressman Paul has co-sponsored numerous pro-life bills, including the D.C. Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Protect Life Act.

    Senator Rick Santorum, the strongly pro-life candidate Romney drove from the primaries, summed-up the impact of Paul Ryan’s addition to the Republican ticket saying, “In addition to Congressman Ryan’s stellar fiscal conservative positions, he is indeed a full-spectrum conservative. He is solidly pro-life, pro-family, and will be an advocate for our military and our national-security priorities.”

  • Thank you sooooo very much Dr.Charles Kenny! The choice of Paul Ryan for VP brings a much needed ray of Hope!!!! There are many people who recognize the great peril this nation is facing, and they have responded with prayer and fasting. Blog posts are all well and good, but when I read the silliness of the above, I feel fear. Now is the time for all people of good will who love this country to UNITE. Let go of the ego already…what is the objective?…four more years of Obama. Look around. Pay attention to the voices which advocate for more and more government. Who are we serving? Please read Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical “Charity in Truth,” as well as Pope John Paul’s teaching on authentic solidarity and justice.

  • Perhaps, we should recall the words of a great 20th century Thomist, “Integral political science . . . is superior in kind to philosophy; to be truly complete it must have a reference to the domain of theology, and it is precisely as a theologian that St. Thomas wrote De regimine principum . . . the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being. . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account” (The Things that are not Caesar’s, p. 128, Jacques Maritain).

    As another Catholic philosopher of the same period, Maurice Blondel, explains, “Material things become the support of economic phenomena; economic facts, even those that appear to relate to entirely physical needs, are already pregnant with moral and social relationships. One cannot legitimately and with impunity enclose oneself in any one order; there is action from the top down and from the bottom up” (Catholicisme Social et Monophorisme).

    Contrary to the prevalent economic liberalism and sociological positivism, they recognized that a self-contained socio-economic order is an abstraction that falsifies the actual supernatural destiny of the concrete person.

    It is from this perspective that Ayan Rand’s philosophy must be judged; one cannot argue that her political and economic views can, somehow, be detached from her religious and philosophical deficiencies.

  • Paul Zummo (per his article): Does it really matter if Paul Ryan doesn’t ape Catholic theology students word for word if the end product is something is properly within Church teaching on economic matters?

    I agree with Zummo that Paul Ryan need not quote Aquinas or any Catholic theologian to make a substantively or even authentically Catholic economic argument. Ryan’s economic arguments, as found both in his budget and in his personal economic philosophy, are still in development. It’s important for all voters from both sides of the aisle to realize that the Ryan the Republican veep nominee and Ryan the possible veep-elect now face (and might eventually face) different realities based on a wide variety of variables. It’s quite possible that Ryan might grow towards a less atomistic view of individual economic relationships towards a preferential option for the poor, or the opposite. Improbability still admits possibility, however remote.

    I disagree partially, however, with Zummo’s assessment of Lisa Graas’s observation on class warfare. Zummo states that “[t]his doesn’t really sound like Ryan is blaming the poor at all.” [my addition in brackets] Indeed, Graas per Zummo’s quotations does not provide direct evidence that Ryan’s deficit reduction plan causes class warfare. Still, Graas’s statement points indirectly towards an undeniable aspect of Aquinas on distributism: class distinctions do matter. Question 61, art. 2, objection 3 and its corresponding reply rely on class distinctions to fine-tune distribution versus commutation. If, as Aquinas asserts in the reply to objection 3, distribution relies on class as a description and not an individual attribute, then drastically cutting Medicaid funding is “class warfare” so far as one aggregate group (those who depend on Medicaid, often poor persons) suffer deprivation for the benefit of the “wealthy” (the “ordinary rich” as well as those whose income is mostly dividends). Per Aquinas, this is different than a “poor person” who wrongs as “wealthy person”, as in this case the circumstances of individuals and not classes influence the morality of an action.

    One difficulty in applying Aquinan social moral theology to modern day circumstance is the reality of our postindustrial society. Nevertheless, the reality that persons act as moral groups as well as moral individuals also implies that the structure of state itself can influence moral behavior. The pitting of one class against another is itself still quite morally problematic per Aquinas.

  • Let’s make this more simple. My question is for everyone who has thus far commented, but anyone else may answer, yes or no. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance? I am not referring to whether it is through government or not. Just a simple question. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor?

  • Pingback: Our Lady of Walsingham Ordinariate | Big Pulpit
  • Poverty is relative. Who gets to decide how poor is poor enough? Materialists who don’t believe life is worth living if it isn’t physically comfortable? Christians, who know that there is more to life than material comfort?

    These questions are far more complex than you seem to appreciate. Like a lot of leftist ideologues, you puff yourself up on abstract ideology, failing to clearly define terms and account for cost limitations. No, all that matters is that your claim “sounds” moral, so moral that it doesn’t have to account for any real-world circumstances at all.

    This is precisely why Christian morality mostly focuses on the responsibilities of the individual. The individual can sacrifice himself for an ideal. He knows the costs and can decide that they are worth paying for his ideals. But individuals like you, who presume to dictate what other people ought to sacrifice for the sake of your ideals, can’t possibly know what the consequences of your policies will be, and whether they will do more harm than good.

    If someone meets a reasonable criteria for poverty, they are due to assistance from the community. If the argument is that this necessarily comes in the form of federal welfare bureaucracies, and that any opposition to these is opposition to Catholic teaching, I call you a charlatan and a fraud – or a fool who is completely out of his or her depth.

    I’m not saying you were ever that specific, Lisa. So lets see your hand. What concrete, specific forms of “assistance” do you believe are due to the poor? How do you define poverty? Who counts as poor? Who is responsible for providing this assistance? What level of government?

  • I don’t know much about this Lisa Graas, but since reading this, I have looked a bit further at the net, and found that she seems to freely bash Republicans. Is she a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-socialist Democrat voting Catholic? I seriously ask this question.

  • No, James, she is a pro-life Catholic. She is independent minded, and as such often disagrees with the Republican party, particularly on economic matters. Often I agree with her criticisms of the GOP, though in this case I think her particular argument is without merit.

  • Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance?

    Yes.

    Ryan may talk about individuality versus collectivism in a way that makes you nervous that he doesn’t believe in the Catholic vision, but his budget plan specifically protects – and funds – programs for the poor.

    Part of the problem is in our political rhetoric. The current battle line is between a more collectivist vision versus a more individualistic vision. So the politician has to deal with the crisis at hand. He doens’t necessarily get to pick his battles. If the primary feud was between some social programs and no social programs, I imagine that he’d be defending social programs and articulating the policy issues according to the dominant themes.

    When Reagan said that government is the problem, he wasn’t embracing an anti-Thomist vision. Based on the decisions he made, he would have been comfortable with a smaller safety net. You could take his comment about government and argue that he was calling for anarchy, though. He was addressing the political issue of the time in a way that was understandable.

    And that’s the key thing. A politician has a responsibility to make his proposed policies understandable to the people. Part of that involves sound bites and signals. I suspect that Ryan would be as happy as Santorum was to articulate his entire viewpoint, but as we saw with Santorum, that doesn’t make good copy. And as much as I like it when politicians elevate the conversation, they do have to make copy, because most people consume their politics in small portions.

    As an aside, I think that Ryan would be more successful politically if he’d balance the Stark Differences rhetoric with more Common Ground rhetoric. It’d comfort the people who, like you, are nervous about him. It would also risk alienating the tea party types who are opposed to any kind of moderation. It’s a tough path to find.

  • I’m not just one of the usual suspects; I’m Keyser Söze, baby.

    My sense of Congressman Ryan is that he genuinely believes his path to property is in line with Catholic social teaching. I’m dubious given his misunderstanding of terms such as subsidiarity and solidarity and also given the simplistic ways in which he frames the moral/political conflicts, but I don’t question his sincerity of fault his fellow Catholics for supporting him. As for Rand’s influence, Paul’s been repeatedly open about this, despite rejecting her atheism and epistemology, and while he’s no Objectivist or Randian, his rhetoric and framing of the issues make evident that, like her, he’s something of an individualist and to some extent sees the world accordingly.

  • Kyle Cupp:
    “…and while he’s no Objectivist or Randian, his rhetoric and framing of the issues make evident that, like her, he’s something of an individualist and to some extent sees the world accordingly.”

    What is the intent of this diagnosis of yours? Is it supposed to be an indicator of future behavior? Is it supposed to identify and include/disqualify him in one group or another? Is it praise by you? Disparagement?

    It seems to me you think he doesn’t quite cut the mustard. Just asking.

  • Ryan’s individualism (which is not nearly so radical and Rand’s) doesn’t disqualify him from being VP or from being supported by Catholics, but it does seem to shape his understanding of Catholic social teaching: his definitions of subsidiarity and solidarity, while partially correct, miss the fullness of the terms as taught by the Catholic faith precisely because they’re too much informed by an individualism vs. collectivism binary. The Church envisions the human person both in terms of his being an individual and as part of a collective: it rejects both collectivism and individualism.

  • Bonchamps, poverty is how the government defines poverty. Is Ryan advocating to change the poverty line?

  • James, I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I do not “bash” anyone, least of all Republicans.

  • I am a former crisis pregnancy counselor for the Archdiocese of Louisville. I have personally witnessed how giving charity to the poor transforms the poor. One will not know charity if one never receives it. While Republicans would argue that charity causes dependency, I would argue that true charity causes one to know what true charity is, and one cannot know true charity without knowing sacrifice for others, and one cannot know resentment and dependency if one knows sacrifice, and that joy that is in that sacrifice. That’s where Jesus is, not in making demands of the poor as if they are doing something wrong by being poor.

  • Most of the young women I ministered to had been kicked out of their home by their parents or otherwise had no support from their families. Every one wanted an abortion because of despair of not knowing how to support the child. Every one had to have every need taken care of (rent, food, etc.). Every one chose life for her child. Every one got a job to support her child. All of them would be appalled by some of the comments on this Catholic blog.

  • Kyle, how’s that barbershop quartet?

    Matt Archbold has a post up that provides pretty good insight from someone who, like many others, was inspired to conversion by Ayn Rand but who ultimately rejected most of the foundational aspects of her philosophy.

    I read Rand at a later age than many young conservatives when they first encountered her writing, and was already familiar with the works of Hayak, Sowell, and so many others. Therefore I had little use for even the positive aspects of her work because I saw them better articulated by more well-rounded writers. But I don’t think there’s necessarily anything pernicious with having been inspired to some degree by her works, nor do I think it necessarily taints one’s overall philosophy having bitten the apple, so to speak.

  • More singing of the praises of Ayn Rand? How about this? Ayn Rand is featured in this very popular book from Ignatius Press: Architects of the Culture of Death I strongly recommend the book.

  • Lisa, I don’t think that last comment was fair. No one’s singing the praises of Ayn Rand. On the points where her writing conflicts with Catholic teaching, Ryan (and Zummo and I and probably everyone else here) rejects Rand. On the points where her writing can be reconciled with Catholic teaching, Ryan recognizes its merits. And there isn’t much of it that can be reconciled – just some of her economics, which is largely cut-and-pasted from her Enlightenment betters.

  • “[P]overty is how the government defines poverty.”

    Such an assertion is difficult to take seriously.

  • Pinky is right. Lisa, you are taking very unfair liberties with some comments, which does expose you to the accusation of dishonesty.

  • No, it is very serious.
    It is called an operational definition in science.
    In this case it is a bureaucracy that defines it in measurable terms that apply to everyone.
    The standard of living of upper middle class Americans at the turn of the century is lower than that of people whom the government calls poor today. And the standard of living of middle class Americans at the end of WWII is lower than the poverty line as defined by the government.

    Charlie

  • Agree, Charlie. And my point is that such a bureaucratically created operational definition is of no practical utility when it comes to a serious and sincere discussion the meaning and application of Catholic social teaching.

  • More singing of the praises of Ayn Rand?

    Remember, you (rightfully) don’t like the tone jvc takes with you in another thread. Saying that Paul’s comment praises Ayn Rand also coarsens the tone.

  • Yep, bureaucratic definitions of poverty may obscure more than reveal:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/poverty-american-style.php

    Which is not to say that all of the poor in America have all of the things noted in the article. But it is accurate to say that you can have all of the amenities listed and still be considered “poor” by the federal government.

  • Wow. Well, where do I begin? How about removing the word “warpath” to describe what I’m doing? http://catholicbandita.com/romneys-ryan-pick-drives-the-wedge-between-catholics-deeper/
    –Lisa Graas 9:08pm

    Ha ha. Someone who styles herself “Catholic bandita” cries over the word “warpath” being applied to her course of action. A bandita is a female thief armed with a gun; the bandolier she wears – from which the word “bandita” is derived – carries her bullets.

    Let’s make this more simple. My question is for everyone who has thus far commented, but anyone else may answer, yes or no. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance?
    –Lisa Graas 5:15am

    An interesting question. Let’s see, if Lisa herself answers “yes” then she’s stuck paying for abortions on demand – no conditions meaning exactly that. So, if she wishes to be a faithful Catholic, Lisa must herself answer her own question “no” just as, presumably, Ayn Rand would.

    I have personally witnessed how giving charity to the poor transforms the poor.
    –Lisa Graas 12:29pm

    Don’t confuse ‘charity’ with ‘government handouts’. I have personally witnessed how giving government handouts to the poor destroys the poor both physically and spirtually.

    If you hear anyone arguing that “charity causes dependency”, you’re hearing someone who is making the same error of confusing ‘charity’ with ‘government handouts’ – even if they are Republicans.

    And furthermore, don’t overlook that sometimes the greatest charity is tough love. Jesus, you may recall from one of the recent daily Mass readings of the Gospel, did not repeat the miracle of the multiplication of loaves just because the crowds were expecting that. From this and other examples, we can conclude that charity includes the responsibility of sometimes saying “no”.

  • Since charity is not to be confused with government handouts, why is the government’s assessment of who are “the poor” relevant?

  • Thomas Aquinas talked about “distributive justice”. The difference between Distributism and distributive justice is a recognized need of the other person, the neighbor and loving the neighbor for the love of God. The “JUSTICE” part comes in when man acknowledges that God is the Creator of all creation and especially man. “Distributive justice” acknowedges God as the Creator , endower and distributor of all. Distributive Justice is the working of Divine Providence. Distributism is the working of usurpation of private property and the refusal of the acknowledgement of man as a sovereign person created by the Supreme Sovereign Being.

    When the atheist denies the existence of God, the Supreme Sovereign Being, does the atheist really exist and does the atheist really have sovereign personhood when he, the atheist rejects his sovereignty from God? A good question for Ayn
    Rand

  • In addition: Distributive Justice is the practice of the virtue of CHARITY. Distributism is the practice of tyranny, communism, Marxism, totalitarianism, and utilitarianism. The practice of the virtue of Charity is voluntary. The extortion of taxes for distributism without assent and consent by the owners of the property of taxes is stealing against the Seventh Commandment.

  • “[P]overty is how the government defines poverty.” “… because poverty is what I say what it is.” And who are you who is saying it is what it is? Taxes belong to the taxpayers even while being administered by the administration. It is assumed that the consent and informed consent, of the citizen is granted across the board by the election, but the item must be put on the ballot for the will of the people to make itself known to those who serve in the public sector.

  • Pingback: A Ryan Roundup | The American Catholic

The Marriage Debate: Lessons and Prospects

Monday, August 13, AD 2012

A scene from the “Hunky Jesus” contest, held annually during Easter in San Francisco. Dozens of homosexuals dress up as Our Lord and engage in public homosexual acts for their amusement and the amusement of thousands of spectators. Its relevance for this post will become clear by the end of it.

Tom Hoopes at CatholicVote.org recently posted his assessment of what lessons the  “gay marriage” debate has taught those of us on the pro-tradition side. I was going to write about this myself, but I’ll go ahead and examine his four lessons as a starting point. My intention is be constructive, because as Hoopes correctly points out in his opening lines, the pro-equality side of this debate has been very successful at defining the parameters and central issues of the debate thus far. We need to assess and regroup. If Mr. Hoopes would like to reply to this, I would certainly welcome it.

1. We learned that being grossed out by homosexuality hurts us.”

Hoopes recalls a discussion with someone raised by homosexual parents:

“What people like my mom see in the religious right is people who say, ‘Ooo, this is icky and disgusting and horrible,’ reflexively, without explaining why,” he told me. “Then my mom and her friend look at their own lives, at their sacrifice and friendship and generosity and say, ‘Well, these people are just hate-mongers.’”

Hoopes concludes:

“There is no reason we should feel special disgust at homosexual acts compared to any other sexual sin. And there is no reason we can’t appreciate the mutual friendship and authentic love in a long-term homosexual couple. If we know what marriage is, a thousand such couples shouldn’t in any way threaten us.”

“Disgust” is a very peculiar phenomenon in that it is neither irrational nor easily expressed with words. Animals in nature have the physical senses to warn them of potential dangers; human beings in society have certain social senses to ward of certain dangers as well. I can’t explain why rotting garbage smells “bad” (even if I can offer a scientific account of why it smells the way it does); I affix the label “bad” to it because it is something I want to avoid, and I want to avoid it because I have an involuntary gag reflex that triggers when I inhale the odor.

Homosexual behavior is repulsive to us because it is harmful to society (more on that later), and we are social beings. The comforting narrative that homosexual activists have developed – that any aversion to homosexuality on the part of a heterosexual is a sign of repressed homosexual desires – is a way of making their positions and lifestyles unfalsifable. If you accept them, great. If you don’t, it is a sign that you secretly do. There can be no legitimate opposition. If you think gay is gross, you probably are gay. A fascinating self-defense mechanism, but one not supported by a shred of serious evidence.

Next, homosexuals aren’t averse to displaying their hearty disgust with heterosexuality (their derogatory name for us is “breeder”) when it suits their own desires and interests. They also go out of their way to provoke anger and disgust with their unjustifiably obscene public marches through major cities, which I consider to be acts of violent ideological aggression against Western Christian civilization. So I’ll take their complaints about our disgust seriously when that word is publicly denounced and banished from their lexicon, and when they aren’t actively trying to provoke disgust in society at large. To imagine that you can deliberately dress, speak and act in ways that you fully know and intend to make people uncomfortable and offended and then complain about people’s discomfort and offense has a proper label: sociopathy. To acquiesce to it is a sinful act of cowardice.

One other thing is required: an acknowledgement that the pro-tradition side has developed rational, secular arguments in favor of its position, instead of a default assumption that it is all either based on “eww gross” or decontextualized passages from the Pentateuch.

Continue reading...

54 Responses to The Marriage Debate: Lessons and Prospects

  • Pingback: Sacred Art Marriage Debate St. Stephen of Hungary Film | Big Pulpit
  • I believe that to introduce the morality of homosexual acts into a debate about civil marriage is a distraction. The argument is a simple one: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..

    The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

    The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

    This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike in the following year. Given this background, it is no wonder that, in the Bègles case, the attempt to establish the right to SSM on equality grounds was rejected by every court that heard it – the Tribunal of Grand Instance, the Court of Appeal in Bordeaux, the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights.

    No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

  • What… what are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

    I really think you need your own blog with your own audience.

  • Bonchamps

    It was intended to demonstrate that defence of traditional marriage need not concern itself with the morality or otherwise of homosexual behaviour. It is, after all, a juridical question and not a moral one.

    Claims to SSM on equality grounds have been successfully defeated by concentrating on the simple question of how marriage differs from other forms of life for couples and the state’s interest in marriage as a legal institution, alongside, but different from these other forms.

    Otherwise, civil unions for smae-sex couples will be regarded as “marriage-lite” and civil unions for opposite-sex couples, which are proving very popular in every country that has introduced them, are unintelligible.

  • Bonchamps,

    What Mr.Paterson-Seymour wrote has plenty to do with what you wrote. His argument, as I understand it, is that Christians confuse the immorality of the act that we are forbidden from doing by Christ’s law with the actions of the state to secure peace and public order.

    These “gay rights” groups exploit this confusion full hilt by making the issue entwine the legal, social and ethical aspects of marriage in a way to normalize sodomy.

    How are we to argue FOR a secular marriage (which the state provides) as a pillar of society between a man and woman if we can’t speak with clarity on what a secular marriage pertains and what the state’s interest in such a marriage is.

    I agree with Mr.Paterson-Seymour that it confuses the audience of our times to combine the immorality of the Sodomic act with the legal and social aspects of marriage- which relies on a patrimony that is not possible by redefining marriage to include same sex couples. There is a reason why same-sex marriage (at least in the United States) started out as something pushed by the American Hard Left 60s activists, the SDS. The purpose, as it has always been, is to destroy the last vestiges of patriarchy and the traditional Western family. Forgive me for the long quote but it’s better to quote the essay, “The Emergence of Gay Liberation” by Estelle Fredman and John D’Emilio found within the textbook: A History of Our Time: Readings on Post-War America Forth Edition Edited by William H. Chafe and Harvard Sitkoff:

    Appearing as it did at the end of the 1960s, gay liberation adopted much of the revolutionary rhetoric of the new Left. GLF’s [Gay Liberation Front] statement of purpose announced that “we are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation of all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature…Babylon has forced us to commit ourselves to one thing…revolution!” Rather than fight the ban on homosexuals in the military, radical gays urged resistance to the Vietnam War. They marched in solidarity with groups such as the Black Panther party, and saw themselves as an integral part of the larger movement of oppressed minorities seeking the overthrow of a destructive social order.

    In articulating a critque of America’s sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists. It argued that the oppression of the homosexuals stemmed from a rigidly enforced system of heterosexual supremacy that supported the primacy of the nuclear family and the dichotomous sex roles within it. Sex was just one more vehicle used to enforce subordination and keep the system functioning. For some, gayness itself symbolized an act of political resistance to conventional roles. “We are women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and nuclear family structure,” wrote Martha Shelley of GLF. Rather than being abnormal, homosexuality was seen as a natural capacity in everyone, suppressed by family and society. Gay liberation promised an end to all that. “Gay is good for all of us, ” proclaimed Allen Young, a former SDS member who joined GLF in 1970:

    The artificial categories “heterosexual and homosexual” have been laid on us by a sexist society….As gays, we demand an end to the gender programming which starts when we are born…The family…is the primary means by which this restricted sexuality is created and enforced…[O]ur understanding of sexism is premised on the idea that in a free society everyone will be gay.”

    (Any highlighted parts were the work of this writer:)

    This is clearly the political fight we are facing, and the integralist-Catholic position shouldn’t concede by placing the ethics of the Church into the fight as well.

  • God thinks the moral dimension of SSM (or rather, the lack of one) is of greatest importance, and it is God’s opinion, not the State’s, that ultimate counts.

    Personally, I don’t care how homosexual behavior is removed from the public square, so long as it is.

  • Paul W Primavera

    Traditional marriage can be defended on its own terms as the legal institution that establishes the legal bond between fathers and their children. It is, thus, irrelevant to same-sex couples. In other words, there is different legal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because their situation is not analogous. Surely, this is something on which unprejudiced people of good-will can agree.

    Why cloud the issue by arguing about the morality of homosexual relationships? How does that advance the case?

  • Michael, everybody knows marriage can be defended on its own terms. The point is, we are not in a DEBATE about whether we should allow gay marriage in addition to traditional marriage. We are quite literally in a battle over the imposition of gay marriage by people who don’t give a damn about your well crafted arguments because they are too busy engaging in lewd public acts with the express purpose of offending people with small children and then using the opportunity to shame them into acceptance by calling them disgusting, breeder homophobes.

  • Chris-2-4

    Obviously, whatever one says will make no impact on partisan gay activists, but what the example of France shows is that such arguments can prevail with opinion-formers.

    Virtually every professor of Civil Law took part in the 1998 Colloquium and they were unanimous in their opposition to SSM, although a majority approved of civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, as an alternative, not to marriage, but to unregulated cohabitation.

    This, in turn, convinced the courts, which always take their cue from the jurists and even convinced that bastion of liberalism, the European Court of Human Rights.

    That was the debate worth winning and it was won decisively.

    In the US, by contrast, the supporters of traditional marriage have used arguments that allowed them to be cast as motivated by irrational animus or religious dogma. In France, such a charge would have been palpably absurd and no one ventured to make it,

  • This is my problem.

    You aren’t addressing a single thing I said. I never said a thing about religious dogma or the morality of sodomy. I have always made secular, rational arguments against “marriage equality”, but that wasn’t the point of this piece. So again, this is really a separate topic you’re bringing up. I agree with you. It’s irrelevant.

  • If you just want to sound off on something, write your own blog post. If you are saying it is related to what I wrote, please quote something I wrote and explain how. Otherwise I will consider your post off-topic and I may remove it. Again, not because I disagree (I don’t disagree), but because I’d like to actually discuss what I actually wrote for a change.

  • Bonchamps

    I would simply endorse what Hmmm says above

  • Great. Well the same warning applies to him.

  • Well, “We learned that being grossed out by homosexuality hurts us.” is Hoopes’s complaint and I think it is well-founded.

    You, in turn, seek to justify expressions of disgust – “Homosexual behavior is repulsive to us because it is harmful to society (more on that later), and we are social beings.” This may well be so, but prudence would suggest that we should not allow ourselves to be drawn on the topic. Rather, we should make clear our opposition to SSM is based on its absurdity.

  • I’m not saying that expressions of disgust belong in our official, programmatic response to the radical gay activists.

    But I refuse to accept the notion that disgust with homosexual behavior – especially when it is deliberately provocative – is a moral failing, or something that needs to be thought-controlled at all times.

  • Rather, we ought to do exactly what they do – turn it back on them. Expose the ways in which they actively seek to disgust people, so that they can no longer attempt to use hetero disgust as a moral weapon against us in the battle for public empathy.

  • One other thing is required: an acknowledgement that the pro-tradition side has developed rational, secular arguments in favor of its position, instead of a default assumption that it is all either based on “eww gross” or decontextualized passages from the Pentateuch.

    I don’t know. Perhaps someone read the above and thought it was saying “we need to develop these rational, secular arguments”.

    But Michael, if you read that, it clearly asserts that Bonchomps knows there are rational secular arguments like the ones you’re making and calls upon the activists to acknowledge their existence.

    I don’t think Bonchamps was looking for a discussion of “Hey let’s come up with all the best rational, secular arguments in this post that we can use to win this culture war.”

  • Chris-2-4

    I still maintain that the two issues have been unnecessarily linked by the champions of traditional marriage in their discussion of the issue.

    I do not suggest that “disgust with homosexual behavior – especially when it is deliberately provocative – is a moral failing, or something that needs to be thought-controlled at all times,” any more than my dislike of Crème de menthe is a moral failing/ But, I should not mention it in a discussion of the liquor licencing laws.

  • “2. Being okay with heterosexual sexual sin hurts us.”

    OK, this is a fair point. Does anyone think that Newt would have received as many votes as he did if he’d had two dudes in his past? I think this is even more of a problem among evangelicals, who emphasize fidelity to one’s *current* spouse but ignore past marriages.

  • MPS.

    For the love of all that is holy, we are not discussing the law here. We are discussing the battle for public sympathy and support. These are radically different things. The radical gay activists have made disgust an issue. We have no choice but to address it.

    I mean, you don’t seem to grasp this concept in your own posts. When people make accusations, you can ignore them for a little while, but if they keep making them and you’ve still said nothing, then you just look guilty. Full disclosure is how you retain public support. People with nothing to hide about their views are more acceptable than people who are obviously avoiding issues.

    Except, it appears, in blog com-boxes.

  • I hope that we can defeat the militant homosexual movement at the election booth and in the court of public opinion. I also hope that those homosexuals who are trying to live chaste and celibate lives will not be discriminated against, harrassed or subject to persecution on the basis of their same-sex attraction or any other basis, for that matter.

    However, when God was faced with militant homosexuality, He destroyed it with fire and brimestone. Yes, that was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (contrary to liberal revisionist history and liberal theology). Of course, I do not advocate the first use of force against militant homosexuals any more than I advocate first use of force against the militant abortionists of Planned Parenthood. But the Democrats will give up neither homosexuality nor abortion without a fight. The Democrats proved this in the 1800s with slavery and it took a bloody civil war to put them down that time.

    Now call me a pessimist and perhaps I am. But these evil, wicked, diabolical people will hold onto their sexual depravity and child-murdering in the same way that the people of Judah held onto theirs in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. And let’s remember this one little thing: God does NOT change. If He was willing to prune the branches of the tree that was Israel, then He will do the same to us grafted in Gentiles exactly as St. Paul describes it in Romans chapter 11. Whether He does that by an asteroid strike on an evil nation (perhaps that was the fire and brimestone rained on Sodom and Gommorah), or He does that by allowing another bloody civil war is open to debate. I don’t want either of those alternatives and am praying for mercy, but unless we repent as a nation, then we can, must and should expect exactly one of those alternatives: natural disaster or war. We deserve no less, and indeed, because we have put up with “luv, tolerance and nice-nice-ness” these freaking godless sex-perverts, we are no better than the children of Israel who intermarried with the pagan Canaanites.

    Cancer must be excised lest the patient die, and the excision is long overdue. We better repent before the Surgeon’s knife of eternal justice approaches.

  • “– that any aversion to homosexuality on the part of a heterosexual is a sign of repressed homosexual desires – is a way of making their positions and lifestyles unfalsifable. If you accept them, great. If you don’t, it is a sign that you secretly do. There can be no legitimate opposition. If you think gay is gross, you probably are gay. A fascinating self-defense mechanism, but one not supported by a shred of serious evidence.” “There can be no legitimate opposition”

    On the contrary: ” I DO NOT DO THAT”. “I WILL NOT DO THAT” “I VALUE MY IMMORTAL SOUL” “I AM GREATLY DISTRESSED FOR YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL” Pray with your body

  • Using the persona of Jesus Christ, claiming “in persona Christi” is a lie by the homosexual practitioners. Jesus Christ crucified is the only expression of Jesus Christ’s love for mankind allowable. Jesus Christ did not do the things these homosexual practitioners say He did. Therefore, they are kidnapping the Person of Christ to forward their position without Jesus Christ’s permission. It is like me saying that Proctor and Gamble makes Colgate toothpaste. It is a lie, like uttering a bad check, plagiarism, or perjury in a court of law. Make them put up or shut up, and stop using Jesus Christ’s name to further their own business until they bring forth evidence that Jesus Christ gave them permission to use HIS HOLY NAME. Holy Orders.

  • “In articulating a critque of America’s sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists.”
    Actually, it is the radical feminists who have prevented the maturation of the males amongs us. It is called emasculation. Homosexuality was, at one time, diagnosed as ‘arrested development’ by the American Psychiatric Association. The change to ‘normal’ was forced and demanded by the homosexuals themselves, kind of like practicing psychiatry and self-diagnosing oneself without a license. Now, I think I will elect myself president. Oh, Napoleon already has the job. It is late

  • Mary De Voe,

    One cannot reason with or apply reason to baboons whose sole aim and goal is the publicly sanctioned – even glorification – of the titillation of their genitals. These people are without conscience and have demonstrated themselves to be less than sentient. There is a cure for such rabidness, and God visited that cure on Sodom and Gommorah. I pray that doesn’t have to happen again.

  • Paul W. Primavera: And this in San Francisco waiting for the big earthquake. Except what you say is true. The homosexual will be shaking his fist at God while he goes down into the inferno. The Catholic Church is the only person authorized to act “in persona Christi” and like Mary who escaped into Egypt to protect baby Jesus, the Catholic Church can ask the court to cease and desist using the NAME of Jesus Christ on the grounds that these individuals are not ordained to do so. Real people have just as much right to be in the public street as anybody else. A procession with the crucifix will do.

    One touch is assault and battery. Make my day.

    It is not freedom of speech to utter another person’s name without the other person’s authorization. In legalese, it is called power of attorney. The Catholic Church has the authorization. Now, the homosexual agenda has to prove that they, too, have the authorization, or power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ. It appears that the homosexual agenda does not have power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ and a cease and desist order from the court is in order.

    Paul, these people do not even know what “titillation of their genitals” is, having coarsened themselves into oblivion. That is the trouble with addiction.

  • As Jesus would say: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s (civil marriage, including gay marriage), and unto God the things that are God’s (religious marriage).”

  • Bonchamps

    “For the love of all that is holy, we are not discussing the law here. We are discussing the battle for public sympathy and support.”

    But public sympathy and support for what? For a change in the law. To achieve this, activists have had some success in persuading the courts that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples have no rational basis. They also seek to persuade the electorate and legislators that the law can be changed without affecting the public, legal purpose of marriage.

    Peter

    The distinction between “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” does not hold water.

    Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes although no third person existed in the world. In civil society, it becomes a civil contract regulated and prescribed by law and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilized countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded; it then becomes a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. But marriage remains one and the same for all that.

    It is, perhaps, worth noting that, although the Mosaic law prescribes many ritual provisions for various offices and transactions of life, there is no ceremony prescribed for the celebration of marriage.

  • MPS,

    There’s a difference between the battle and the merits of the objective. If you don’t get that, then I guess you just don’t get that.

  • Bonchamps

    You wrote, “There’s a difference between the battle and the merits of the objective”

    And the battle will only be won by convincing those who have the power to shape public policy, in the courts and in the legislature of those merits. We will not do that, if our objections appear to be the rationalisation of anti-gay animus, or an attempt to impose religious values by law.

  • MPS,

    It is a good thing that my objections are nothing of the sort. Aggressively pointing out the dishonesty, hypocrisy, and sociopathy of the gay cultural and political movement is not part of the argument against “marriage equality”, but rather a defense of our collective character, which ALSO matters in any appeal we make.

    You’re picking a fight that doesn’t exist. We don’t disagree. So I feel like you’re just purposely not hearing me, not acknowledging me, and it kinda pisses me off to be honest.

  • I’ve never once argued that our case ought to be based on religious values or anti-gay hostility. If you keep suggesting that I am arguing this, then you are fundamentally incapable of reading what I write, or are just off in some kind of weird, inexplicable alternate reality that I can’t access and can’t communicate about. It’s just really frustrating.

  • I certainly did not intend my remarks to have any personal application

  • Bonchamps,

    Not everyone who is against sodomy is “grossed out” by what is considered homosexual actions. (I include myself in that category.) The irrationality of act and how they define themselves is much more bothersome to me quite frankly. I don’t believe I’m too inured from having such a reaction but it may be the case. And that case, whether habituated or natural, is felt by an equal number of humans who don’t share your disgust for these actions. As I understand it, any argument (especially in modern-liberal milieu we exist in) that is premised on one’s disgusts isn’t go to go very far for this reason: People’s disgusts and reactions are predicated in a complex and not fully understood manner and when everyone is sovereign, there is no reason for me to entertain your disgusts more seriously than my own or any Joe and Jane American. From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal’s propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone’s conventional and “small-minded” thinking. The “universal man” has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line.

  • To portray or characterize Jesus Christ as virgin, innocent, as the TRUTH and perfect charity is true. Judas Iscariot hung himself and he burst open. Judas Iscariot literally “spilled his guts” for betraying Jesus Christ with a kiss. We have four witnesses to the TRUTH, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The bible tells us to add or subtract nothing from the TRUTH. Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, as “it was not so from the beginning”.
    When Jesus defined the relationship between the sexes “from the beginning”, Jesus defined human sexual behavior to eternity. When Adam knew Eve and Eve brought forth Cain, Abel and Seth, Eve was of the age of informed sexual consent. Both Adam and Eve were adults. Violating the law of God is known as “adultery” that is, not behaving as an adult would behave, but faking it.
    Any sitting judge, who cannot discern the good from the evil or the TRUTH from the fake needs to be impeached, which simply means that the judge would be sent to live with his own ignorance or sin.
    Now, these individuals claiming to portray Jesus Christ are liars and perjurers, or show me where in the Holy Scripture, the story of Jesus Christ’s life, does Jesus bless and approve such behavior. Jesus only denounces any sexual behavior outside of the bond between male and female, from the beginning unto eternity.

  • If I may intrude on Bon and MP-S here, the traditional marriage crowd does have legal arguments, along with cultural, moral, and Biblical arguments. There’s also the visceral argument: the feeling that a lot of people get in their gut when they see homosexual acts. Everyone has a different personality, and that means that different arguments will reach different people. I don’t find Michael’s argument persuasive at all, but that’s just me. There isn’t going to be one argument that wins the day, I’ll bet.

    Maybe I’m wrong. The natural law argument seems irrefutable. But that’s just me. I think a lot of people need some intellectual framework so they can say that their opposition to gay marriage isn’t just based on discrimination. For the past several decades, we’ve been retraining ourselves as a culture not to react to individuals outside our comfort zone. That’s a good thing, but it’s made us unable to trust our guts on gay marriage.

    To a Catholic or an evangelical, the Biblical argument suffices. But it can always be rebutted by pointing to O.T. laws that no longer apply. Because the evangelical doesn’t understand ecclesiology, he can’t reply to that. The Catholic can, but he’s got to explain ecclesiology first, and a lot of people won’t bother to listen. An evangelical can bring up St. Paul’s writings, but then that degenerates into an argument about whether Paul was an apostle, the authenticity of the Bible, translation from the Greek, et cetera.

    Anyway, my point is, we need to get all our arguments in a line, and know how to respond to the rebuttals. Even with all that, some people are still going to assume that we’re motivated by bigotry. The comparison to the pro-life movement is apt – but remember, we’ve only really begun that fight, and on our best day 45% of the population still disagrees with us.

  • The reason we feel disgust at Homosexual acts is because the are against the natural law and are unnatural. By definition these acts go against nature and are perverted.

    Homosexual acts are not the same as Heterosexual acts. When a man fornicates with a woman, there is nothing disgusting about the act itself. Sex between a man and a woman is natural and normal. There is nothing unnatural or perverted about it. The problem is not the sexual act, but that the act was outside of marriage and is the sin of fornication. Sodomy and other Homosexual acts are always intrinsic evils and unnatural.

  • If it is from God it will continue. If it is not of God it will die of itself. The homosexual does not being forth offspring which pretty much assures that the homosexual will die out. What is so outrageous is that the homosexual agenda is being enforced through the courts as legal, being taught in school as real. It is not real. A fake husband and a fake wife, a fake mother or a fake father is not real. No court ruling can make it real. There have been homosexuals since Sodom and Gomorrah but only now has homosexual behavior been codified as real. (In Sodom and Gomorrah the homosexuals had the upper hand, but that did not change the law of God) Here in America, homosexual behvior, abortion and prayer ban have become the law of the land. It is wrong to force a lie on anybody with a rational soul, especially someone who constitutes government and pays for government through taxes. The homosexual will argue that he pays taxes but like the atheist, the homosexual must have something to come home to and that is the truth.

    MPS; ” or an attempt to impose religious values by law.” All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside. That is why they are called outlaws. “Render unto Caesar” Caesar belongs to God. Or do you think that Caesar created himself?

  • Hmmm: ” From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal’s propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone’s conventional and “small-minded” thinking. The “universal man” has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line.”

    The “universal man” has a rational and immortal soul and a destiny in eternity. The man is composed of human body and rational soul. Homosexual behavior ignores the transcendence of man, the evil to avoid and the holiness that must be pursued.

    Our founding principles are grounded in Divine Providence and our unalienable rights are endowed by “their Creator”. Without God, man has only himself, as you stated. But with God,”their Creator” man has been guaranteed FREEDOM,TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.

  • Hmmm,

    I believe we can give rational expression to our disgust. We must, because it is a topic that will continue to come up. And it is a fact that these gay “pride” marches and other similar events are intended to provoke disgust. It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy – the sociopathy, really – of those who intend to disgust then complaining about disgust.

    But I don’t suggest that disgust ought to be the basis of public policy. If that emerged in my writings, I didn’t mean for it to.

  • Pinky,

    In my view, our primary argument ought to be that gay individuals already have all of the same rights as heterosexual individuals, and that the primary purpose of “marriage equality” is not to achieve legal equality, but rather to impose social equality and criminalize religious institutions that refuse to recognize homosexuality as morally valid.

  • Mary De Voe wrote MPS; ” or an attempt to impose religious values by law.” All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside.

    But that is simply not true. When the Code Napoléon was adopted in most of Europe, it expressly abolished offences against religion, notably blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft. This was in accordance with the Roman principle, deorum injuria diis cura – offences against the gods are the gods’ business. If they are food citizens in this world, the magistrate need not concern himself with their destination in the next.

  • “…but rather to impose social equality and criminalize religious institutions that refuse to recognize homosexuality as morally valid”. Marriage is an act of God. Militant homosexuality intends to impose the state over the will of God among the people of God, destroying the knowledge of the human being as composed of body and soul and the state as servant of the people of God. Same thought, dfifferent words.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Again, religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. The Triune God is Three Divine Persons in one God. It is the Person of God in man’s human, rational, immortal soul, WHO gives man his sovereign personhood and all endowed unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    It is the Supreme Sovereign Being WHO gives the human being existence. God is existence; which begs the question: “If the atheist rejects God, Existence Himself, does the atheist exist?” Hmmm, being fallible has its perks. (Isn’t this why the devil himself acknowledges almighty God, refuses to obey, but, the devil himself knows God)

    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.

    The Supreme Sovereign Being is perfect Generosity, perfect Charity and perfect LOVE. God is VIRTUE, all VIRTUE, no vice. God created man in original innocence with sovereign personhood. Man constituted government for the purposes inscribed in our founding principles, acknowledging “their Creator”, “unalienable rights”, “Divine Providence”, “to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity” among other rights. The right to the TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the TRUTH is every man’s right expressed in a court of Justice. Man as a sovereign person, as a human being with body and soul, has a right to the TRUTH. The TRUTH is found only in virtue. The TRUTH is never found in vice.

    FREEDOM is granted by God. Would one impose Rousseau’s, Napoleon’s or Roman FREEDOM on man to bless the human race, or God’s FREEDOM?

    Sorry, Michael Paterson-Seymour, I espouse the perfect FREEDOM granted by God in all virtue without vice, and as far as the imposition of Divine Providence on the American citizen, it has already been done in the Declaration of Independence.

  • People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments.

  • Nardia: “People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments.”

    How secular are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution or even the Emancipation Proclamation, and/or the Gettysburg Address?

  • Plato: Gorgias: “the passive homosexual” as ridiculous, loathsome, disgraceful, shameful, and wretched.

    Plato’s writings contain numerous condemnations of homosexual intercourse. See Laws 636c. Plato, speaking through the character of the Athenian stranger, rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), describes it as an “enormity” or “crime” (tolmema), and explains that it derives from being enslaved to pleasure. Plato, and other great pre-Christian thinkers, rejected homosexual acts on moral grounds.

    Gay marriage is solely about those getting “married.” This narcissism is the main difference with valid marriage.

    Sodomy is solely for and about those engaging in it (mutual masturbation). It is illicit, sterile, and separated from God. It denies God as Creator. It denies the purpose of God’s creation and His participation with us in the Creation of children. To put forth this foul abomination as equivalent to marriage denies the barrenness of sodomy, which is the goal of all this bloody nonsense.

  • T Shaw

    Aristotle’s comments are interesting.

    “Others arise as a result of disease [??????] (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these sex with men [?????????? ???? ???????]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” [Nicomachean Ethics Book 7:5] [Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30]

    His equation of sodomy with nail-biting or eating coal may seem fanciful, but what they have in common is their essential futility. I am sure that Aristotle intended these rather bizarre illustrations to emphasise the main point: that there are no “reasons” for bad choices- just causes.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you.

    I never dreamt I could say the following, “Apparently, Aristotle, Plato, and I have something in common.”

    It seems liberals think they are smarter than Aristotle, Newton, Plato; not to mention God Almighty.

  • T Shaw

    You can add St Thomas Aquinas to your list

    St Thomas obviously had the passage I cited in mind, when he says

    “It happens that something which is not natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man, on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this corruption may be either on the part of the body — from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa — or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature.” (S.T. I-II, Q. 31, Art. 7, cor.)

    The bestiality bit is St Thomas’s own, perhaps from a mistranslation of Aristotle’s ????????, which occurs in the previous passage, where Aristotle discusses cannibalism at some length – what the word actually means is anyone’s guess (brutish, animal-like or something of that sort; goodness knows what St Thomas’s Latin version said and he misses out plucking the hair and biting one’s nails, which are two of Aristotle’s illustrations. I do, however, like St Thomas’s point about sweet things seeming bitter &c.

    It all emphasises that there is no reason, no rational motive, for such behaviour, just instinctive or dispositional causes This, by the by, is what I take “intrinsically disordered” to mean.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour and T. Shaw. Thank you both for these very interesting informative posts. They are a joy to read.

  • The homosexual practitioner is not denied his homosexuality, nor is the homosexual practitioner denied his marriage. The homosexual practitioner’s God is the devil himself, and therefore, the homosexual practitioner is demanding from almighty God what he cannot get from the devil himself, and that is love and affection.
    When the homosexual practitioner leaves his demands for love and affection, and begins reverencing God, loving and cherishing human beings, the homosexual practitioner will be given love and affection packed down, spilling over.

Stripping Catholic universities and colleges of their “Catholic” identity: Is it “forfeiting a valuable resource”?

Monday, August 13, AD 2012

 

When the Vatican recently informed officials of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PCUP) that the institution could no longer be called either “Pontifical” or “Catholic,” many wondered whether this action was a “signal” intended to get other Catholic universities and colleges in line soon or face similar consequences.

For those who would hope that the edict is a signal, the Vatican didn’t issue the edict precipitously.  Decades of listening and discussing the issues proved fruitless.  In the end, the Vatican acted decisively, leaving the door open to reconciliation on the Vatican’s terms.

 

 

In the weeks following the announcement, many observers of U.S. Catholic higher education who would hope that the edict is a signal have mused about whether and what it would take for the Vatican to strip an institution’s status as a Catholic university or college.

What interests The Motley Monk isn’t all of that speculation, but the fear expressed by some of those observers about the consequences—the fall out—of the Vatican decision to strip one institution of its status as Pontifical and Catholic.

For example, of those U.S. Catholic universities and colleges that appear to be “Catholic in Name Only,” the editor of Catholic World News, Phil Lawler, recently wrote:

We could easily supply a long list of colleges and universities that should no longer be allowed to parade as “Catholic” institutions—if only for the sake of truth in advertising.  But before indulging that daydream too long, stop and consider the possible consequences.  If a bishop were to take the bold step of declaring that, say, Georgetown (or Boston College or Fordham or Loyola—take your pick) is no longer a Catholic institution, would the Church be forfeiting a valuable resource?

At one time all these universities were genuinely Catholic. Built up by the contributions of loyal Catholics, they nourished generations of students in the faith before something went terribly wrong. These schools exist because faithful Catholics wanted a solid Catholic education for young people. The campus, the buildings, the proud traditions: these are all part of a patrimony, handed down by our forefathers in the faith. Are we willing to give them all away now?

Yes, I know; these institutions already largely controlled by professors and administrators who are at best indifferent to the Catholic faith, and at worst hostile. But that could change. Just as the culture of dissent took over the schools in the late 20th century, a resurgence of orthodoxy could recapture them in the 21st. If the schools were officially stamped as non-Catholic, it would be much more difficult to reclaim them.

 

Lawler raises issues that many have been discussing for a very, very long time.

But, The Motley Monk asks:

  • If a Catholic institution isn’t providing students a distinctively Catholic educational experience as the Church defines that, what “valuable” resource would the Church be losing?
  • If that institution’s campus, building, and proud traditions—the “patrimony”—are nothing but mausoleums testifying to a dead past and which the majority of its administrators and faculty wish would disappear into the dustbin of history, what “valuable” resource would the Church be losing?
  • And what evidence is there that those who control most of these institutions today have in place succession plans to ensure they will be replaced by authentically Catholic academics—that so-called “resurgence of orthodoxy”?

 

Speculating about the answers to these questions isn’t necessary.  After all, the answers are already in.

Consider George M. Marsden’s “The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief.”

  • All of those once eminent Protestant universities and colleges in the United States he studied are now abundantly-endowed, nonsectarian, and secular institutions.
  • The patrimony has been eviscerated from their institutional cultures.
  • Any hoped-for resurgence of orthodoxy hasn’t happened for 100+ years and, quite likely, won’t happen any time soon, given the state of U.S. Protestantism.

 

The Motley Monk is wondering whether the fear of losing a “valuable” resource is a chimera, one engendering cowardice in those who bear a moral responsibility for U.S. Catholic higher education.

What’s at stake?

The soul of U.S. Catholic higher education, what may have once been a valuable resource.

 

 

To read Phil Lawler’s article, click on the following link:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=929

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

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Stripping Catholic universities and colleges of their “Catholic” identity: Is it “forfeiting a valuable resource”?

  • Marsden’s account was preceded by 5 decades by the inimitable WFB, Jr with “God and Man at Yale.”

  • Maybe if a couple of smaller ones are axed, the bigger ones who wish to correct their courses will do so.

  • This seems like a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t between stripping the colleges of their Catholic label (the Motley Monk’s proposal, I think) and doing nothing (the coward’s choice). There’s another possibility: declaring that Catholic colleges are a valuable resource and doing something to make them more Catholic. There’s nothing cowardly about that.

    Lawler makes a mistake if he’s simply hoping that things will change. Change has to be a transitive verb. Triage is a pointless exercise if you’re just labelling which patients are incurable. Once you have identified the ones that can be saved, you have to do something to help them. So, what can the Church, or its faithful members, do to pull a school like Georgetown out of its rut? If nothing, then by all means strip it of its designation. If there is something, however, we need to figure it out and get to work. Lawler mentions the teachers and administrators. There’s a good starting point.

  • “This seems like a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t between stripping the colleges of their Catholic label (the Motley Monk’s proposal, I think) and doing nothing (the coward’s choice). There’s another possibility: declaring that Catholic colleges are a valuable resource and doing something to make them more Catholic. There’s nothing cowardly about that.”

    No, though very hard and, for some, probably too late.

    The same problem is going on with Catholic hospitals though not yet to the degree that universities have been hit. I work at a Catholic hospital. We are setting up a bioethics curriculum to teach residents. I am struggling to get the Catholic perspective on bioethics taught. No one wants to allow it.

  • Phillip, my prayers are with you. This could be the most important testimony of your faith that you give in your entire life. I hope that it’s not too late for Catholic schools or for your employer.

  • Phil Lawler says in his article:

    “A resolute bishop might not need to strip a wayward school of its “Catholic” status. He might only need to remind administrators of that possibility. Imagine that a bishop warned a Catholic university president that he (the bishop) was thinking of making a public announcement that the school was no longer Catholic; wouldn’t that have an impact? Or suppose the bishop said that he was prepared to call a few wealthy Catholic donors, and encourage them to suspend their contributions? This might be one of those cases in which the threat is more potent that the execution.”

    To the contrary:

    A “Catholic” college scheduled a conference on its campus including workshops by Planned Parenthood. The local bishop asked the Jesuit president to cancel the conference, but he would not do such. The bishop then said that he would take that response into account when considering the future of the Catholic status of that college in his diocese. The president called the bishop’s bluff and went ahead with the conference. The bishop “blinked” and did nothing. At that college’s commencement the following spring, the bishop was on the dias, sitting next to the president, and delivered the benediction.

    At another “Catholic” college a conservative Jesuit was chosen president by a fluke. When the liberals (both clerical and lay) realized what he would do, they asked a number of wealthy donors to suspend their contributions. The donors did such, and the new president resigned after nine months, never to take another position (teaching or administrative) in any academic institution (Catholic or otherwise).

  • Pingback: Syria's Christians Obama Freedom of Worship Work LCWR | Big Pulpit
  • As one currently employed by a catholic university, I would say that talk of ‘retaking’ the universities is pointless. Usually it’s the admin who have some attachment to catholicism and once in a while try to make catholicism felt. But the faculty are not catholic or sympathetic to catholicism, especially in the humanities. Faculty hiring is almost never by merit but almost always by previous connections and by who seems the best ‘fit’. The liberals and anti catholics control the hiring process, and can to hire people like them, which the ivy leagues turn out every year. I would say it’s best to support the smaller, newer catholic colleges, that may not have many faculty or big endowments, but at least actually are catholic.

  • I wish the Vatican would start pretty soon a scanning of what Pontificial Catholic Universities, Seminaries and catholic labelled high schools are doing to the teaching of ou faith! Many faithful families would rather send their children and youth to non-catholic schools today. A cleanse is badly needed in the area.

  • lee faber, you mention that “(f)aculty hiring is almost never by merit but almost always
    by previous connections and by who seems the best ‘fit. The liberals and the anti
    (C)atholics control the hiring process…”. I’d point out that not only is this especially
    true in the humanities, as you mention, but that it also applies for those Catholic
    universities that continue to have theology departments.

    Our bishops have largely ignored Canon #812 of the 1983 Code that states that
    Catholic theologians must seek and obtain a mandatum from their bishop.
    In doing so, they have for thirty years removed themselves from the process of
    determining just who may claim to be a “Catholic theologian”. Into that vacuum
    have stepped precisely the liberals and anti-Catholics on the hiring and tenure
    committees you described above. Nowadays, anyone may teach and claim
    to be a “Catholic theologian” if they can find a journal to publish them and an
    administrator to hire them. They need never even know the name of their bishop,
    let alone seek his license to teach in the name of the Church. I repeat, it is the
    university hiring and tenure committees that decide just who is a Catholic theologian,
    and our bishops have removed themselves from all decision-making about who
    may teach in the name of the Church.

    I think it is ridiculous to believe that our once-Catholic universities will ever regain
    their orthodox identities. Our bishops have not shown much leadership in re-estab-
    lishing the Catholic identities of our colleges, and until they do, the breakdown will
    continue, not magically reverse on its own.

  • The issue is frought with complexity, and is best considered on consultation with/deference to faithful Catholic professors. Having gone through 2 closures of private schools in our family, both contentious, I have learned that the two most inportant things at stake in any school are (1st) the good teachers – they are “the primary good” that needs to be preserved, and (only 2nd) the resources they need to teach. Sometimes – we elevate #2 to primacy with #1. No. 2 can always be mustered.

    Now by “good teachers” in a Catholic context, I would define them as those who willingly pledge themselves faithful to the Church led by The Pope and guided by The Magisterium. An example of teachers that must be supported are those professors in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, by virtue of their statement of purpose (excerpts below):

    ?”We accept as the rule of our life and thought the entire faith of the Catholic Church… not merely in solemn definitions but in the ordinary teaching of the Pope and those bishops in union with him, and also embodied in those modes of worship and ways of Christian life, of the present as of the past, which have been in harmony with the teaching of St. Peter’s successors ….
    ?”The questions raised by contemporary thought must be considered with courage and dealt with in honesty. … We wish to accept a responsibility which a Catholic scholar may not evade: to assist everyone, so far as we are able, to personal assent to the mystery of Christ as made manifest through the lived faith of the Church, His Body…”

    I am sad to admit that most “Catholic Schools” are now bastions of new age heresy, materialism and secular progressive politics. If a school can be reclaimed, like a lost sheep, I rejoice. Meanwhile, let us support faithful professors everywhere, faithful schools where they exist, and new schools that are trying to get established/survive. The objective is this: real Catholic education for parents, teachers and students, and a place for real Catholic teachers to work and thrive.

  • This thread makes me think about Catholic history. At any time, there are a few religious orders that are small, holy, and booming. Some of the others are fat and complacent, and some of them are slowly sinking. Of course, sometimes an established order can experience a revival. I imagine the same is true about Catholic schools. And if the Carmelites can fall into complacency, how much more likely is it that Georgetown University would? So, yeah, foster the promising new ones, fix the fixable old ones, and terminate the unfixable ones, just as you would with religious orders.

  • Censoring “Catholic” colleges and universities seems to me to be too little too late. The same goes for many “Catholic” primary and secondary schools which are “Catholic” in name only but do not catechize students in the Catholic faith beginning with the basics taught in the Catechism. This is not new. It seems to me to have gone on since Vatican II and was given little more than lip service. Now there are nearly 2 generations which wonder what all the fuss in the Church is now about. Is it any wonder? They only know what they have been taught.

Jackson’s Black Sunday School

Monday, August 13, AD 2012

One of the more interesting tidbits about Thomas Jonathan Jackson, universally known as Stonewall, is that he and his wife established a Sunday School for free and slave blacks in Lexington, Virginia.  The school taught free blacks and slaves to read although this was against Virginia law.

Jackson’s personal views on slavery are probably best summed up by this statement from his wife:

I have heard him say that he would prefer to see the negroes free, but he believed that the Bible taught that slavery was sanctioned by the Creator Himself, who maketh all men to differ, and instituted laws for the bond and free. He therefore accepted slavery, as it existed in the South, not as a thing desirable in itself, but as allowed by Providence for ends which it was not his business to determine.

Jackson continued to financially support the Sunday School during the War, and one his last pieces of correspondence prior to his fatal wounding contained his regular contribution.  Here is a letter Jackson wrote on June 7, 1858 describing the operation of the school to Lyle Davis, a Professor at Washington College and a member of the same Presbyterian Church in Lexington that Jackson attended:

Continue reading...

On Vacation 2012

Sunday, August 12, AD 2012

Family on Vacation

I am on vacation this week with my family.  My internet connection in the coming week will range from intermittent to non-existent.  I will have posts for each day I am away on the blog, but if something momentous occurs, for example:  Elvis is discovered working at a Big Boy’s in Tulsa, the Pope issues a Bull against blogging as a complete waste of time, or Obama dumps Biden and picks his teleprompter as his running mate, I trust that this post will explain why I am not discussing it.

Among other activities we will be attending the Gen Con Convention in Indianapolis, a pilgrimage the McClarey clan makes each year to renew our uber-Geek creds.  If any of you are close to Indianapolis and you have never attended, it is worth a drive to see tens of thousands of role players, board gamers and computer gamers in Congress assembled.  If nothing else you will go home reassured as to how comparatively normal you are.  Last year’s attendance was in excess of 36,000 and there are multitudes of gaming related events.  A good symbol of the holy grail of nerdiness that is Gen Con is here.  Below is a Gen Con video from 2011 which gives a nice feel of the convention.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to On Vacation 2012

  • Welcome (back) to Indy! I’m in an outlying area too inefficiently located to fight my way downtown, else I’d shake your hand personally. Nonetheless, I think you’ll like the stuff left over from the Super Bowl hooplah.

  • Enjo, enjoy to repeat T. Shaw. and return safely. Hail Marys

  • I hope you and yours have a wonderful time.
    I have something to ask you – maybe you will think it over on your journey home. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have some sort of a response button to push after reading a fellow American Catholic’s comments? Lots of times I would like to say Amen to a post without writing a response– I don’t mean a “like” that will get posted anywhere else- just something on our own board, if I may call it that- sort of an intramural “like”. It would be interesting too because some of our friends who just read and don’t comment may participate in this way and kind of give us a “poll” of where we stand
    And if I haven’t told you, and all of the members before- I really appreciate this place. Thanks

  • I dunno Don

    I guess there is salvation for you, but you must be treading on egg shells, brother. 😉

  • Good time to be on vacation. ^.^ I look forward to being able to geek with my girls.

  • Pingback: Gen Con Convention | My CMS

Paul Ryan For Veep

Saturday, August 11, AD 2012

If the average American can’t handle complexity in his or her own life, and only government experts can … then government must direct the average American about how to live his or her life. Freedom becomes a diminishing good.?But there’s a major flaw in this “progressive’” argument, and it’s this. It assumes there must be someone or some few who do have all the knowledge and information. We just have to find, train, and hire them to run the government’s agencies.

Friedrich Hayek called this collectivism’s “fatal conceit.” The idea that a few bureaucrats know what’s best for all of society, or possess more information about human wants and needs than millions of free individuals interacting in a free market is both false and arrogant. It has guided collectivists for two centuries down the road to serfdom — and the road is littered with their wrecked utopias. The plan always fails!

Paul Ryan

 

All the signs point to Mitt Romney selecting today Paul Ryan for the Gop Vice-Presidential Nominee.  Ryan is the Congressman for the first congressional district of Wisconsin.  I am quite familiar with him as his congressional district encompasses Kenosha where my mother-in-law lives.  My family and I will be traveling up to visit her for a few days today as we do every summer.

Ryan, 42, is a Catholic, married and the father of three kids.  He has been in Congress since 1999.  He is most notable for his proposed budget, the Ryan plan, which passed the House on April 15, 2011.  The bill died in the Senate.

A second version of the Ryan budget was passed this year by the House.  The budget came under attack from liberal Catholics and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a majority of the bishops appearing to confuse social justice with a welfare state driving us to national bankruptcy.   Ryan responded to his critics with a lecture at Georgetown which is featured in the video at the beginning of the post.

Continue reading...

55 Responses to Paul Ryan For Veep

  • ….a majority of the bishops appearing to confuse social justice with a welfare state driving us to national bankruptcy.

    Statements like this are why I enjoy this blog so much. It puts into words what most clear headed, reasonable Catholics are thinking. I feel like I am “not alone”. Thank you Donald.

  • Everything about this election will be a stark contrast and represent a choice.

    Paul Ryan is a serious man who truly represents the best of what we the people have to offer. He attempts to abide by principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

    His counterpart in Biden is the exact opposite: a frivolous, partisan, bureaucrat who panders to our worst inclinations and fears.

    Game on!

  • I have no problem with Ryan as a VP choice. I would prefer Petraeus, assuming he’s pro-life.

  • I am Very happy with the idea of Paul Ryan VPOTUS– (Looks Latin doesn’t it)

    And he says “Give me Thomas Aquinas” Yay!

    Now a sprint to the election– would the patron saint of Sprints be Paul?

  • Reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful.
    Yay.

  • Since no-one else has mentioned… he’s cute, too. Yes, that’s silly, but it’s really hard to read menace into someone that looks kind of sweet and innocent with a young enthusiasm.

  • I’m heartily looking forward to seeing Ryan trounce Biden in the VP debate.

  • Yes, agreed, Foxfier. It will be so good to see and hear both men, who can smile as opposed to sneer, for a change of pace. Getting tired of fast scrolling. May God bless them for wanting to do what they can do. We so need their presence and work.

  • Foxfire, my wife pointed put the same thing and then brought up “Hey Girl, It’s Paul Ryan” as proof.

    Scandalous, I say! Scandalous!

    Giving someone a pass because they are attractive! Aweful! Unprecedented! I mean, it is totally different than Sarah P. because, well, because, uh….

  • “…come from nature and God, not from government”!!!! Wooohoooooooo I’m young and I’m pumped!

  • I remember going to Kenosha WI during my time at A School at Great Mistakes ( I mean Lakes) Naval Training Center. I was only 19 and the drinking age in WI was still 19 bak in 1985. But I digress

    I have somewhat mixed feelings about Ryan as Mitt’s running mate. It’s not because I don’t like Ryan. I do. I think he’s one of the best things the GOP has going for it. It’s just I think he is so needed in the House as the budget committe chair. And that he would make an excellent Speaker someday as opposed to that spineless jellyfish Boehner.

    But I think a debate between him and Hairplugs Biden will be such a missmatch I’ll almost feel sorry for old Joe.

  • I may need to retool the apocalyptic investment strategy . . . not until after election.

  • See Instapundit:

    IOWAHAWK: “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: math.”

    Related: Paul Ryan needs to use @iowahawkblog’s line: “You know what will end Medicaid as we know it? Medicaid as we know it.”

    Representative Ryan represents Obama’s worst nightmare: the Truth.

  • Here’s to hoping Ryan is the wind needed to keep the weathervane pointed in the *right* direction. He is a very good pick.

  • I respect Ryan. The Vice Presidential slot is not a good fit for him and removing him from Congress carries with it a regrettable opportunity cost.

    Romney needed to select someone as prepared to assume the presidency as an understudy is prepared to step into a role. That would mean someone who has been in executive positions before. It also means someone who has been extensively vetted so there are no surprises during the campaign. It means in addition someone whose ambitions are circumscribed (as is common, for example, among the aged). Ryan does not fill the bill.

    There are a dozen or more former cabinet secretaries and federal bureau chiefs of consequence who are a.) Republicans b.) born after 1939 and c.) have held a consequential elective office as well. Some of them (e.g. Christine Todd Whitman) are unsuitable because wrong on non-negotiables. Still, were they all unsuitable or uninterested?

  • Pingback: SPECIAL: Romney Picks Paul Ryan, Catholic, For VP | Big ?ulpit
  • What does Romney’s pick of Ryan mean? ….

    It means that Mitt Romney thinks he can fool Catholics (and others) into believing that he is pro-life. Unfortunately Mitt is, and always has been exactly what he needed to be at any given point in his life that would further his career. His current protestations at being pro-life are only for the purpose of gaining the Republican nomination.

    I have to believe the best, and therefore I will believe that congressman Ryan believes that he can positively impact the direction of a potential Romney administration; unfortunately for Ryan, Romney will lose and it is likely that a potentially monumental political career will be cut short.

  • unfortunately for Ryan, Romney will lose

    And you know this how?

  • Darn it! No more bubble bursting you guys– lets hope and work for the best.
    Sometimes people see what they expect to see, according to their own proclivities or their own sad experience. I think he is an honorable person who has tried on different ideas is sifting them down to what is good. We are All on a journey here. I, for one, am more hopeful today with Paul Ryan on the ticket. I am glad it was not C. Rice and I don’t think Romney is trying to fool Catholics. I think he is trying to be president.

  • Art says :The Vice Presidential slot is not a good fit for him and removing him from Congress carries with it a regrettable opportunity cost.

    While I tend to agree that Ryan is not a great fit for VP, I am unclear what the opportunity cost is. If Obama is reelected Ryan in Congress will have zero influence or significance regardless of being on the ticket or not. Even if the Dems were somehow to lose in 2016 or 2020, the Ryan plan would be so OBE as to be laughable. Even more to the point, the public would have become like Greeks Italians and Spaniards rioting for more government handouts. On the other hand, if Romney wins, then Ryan will be the one doing the budget formulation with Congress and a handpicked successor would warm his Budget seat. What am I missing??

  • No committee chair is indispensable. The Speaker’s office holds most of the power. If anything, Ryan has shown us how little one good man can do in Congress over the last two years.

    I’ve seen people saying that a Romney loss would ruin Ryan’s career, or a Romney win would do the same. I don’t believe either. He’s young and not cheating on his cancer-suffering wife, so he can bounce back from a loss. And any high-level exposure is good for a politician. There are a lot of ups and downs in his future. Reagan won his second term when he was 70. Paul Ryan won’t be that age until 2040.

    As for whether or not Romney is going to win, that’s still up in the air. Not because I or someone else isn’t good at predicting, but because there are literally a thousand campaign events before the election, and the public hasn’t made up its mind.

  • Pinky nailed it.

  • No source given at the link, but one wonders how long before some of our co-religionists begin their attacks:

    http://christiandiarist.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-faces-left-wing-religious-attack/

  • Yes, Phillip, one wonders what brave new voice of the Catholic left will go on the attack.

  • The catholic left and the lying, liberal (in the tank for Obama) so-called media will begin with “Romney will end Medicare as we know it.”

    Their worst enemy: the Truth is that Medicare is self-destructing.

    Keith Hennessy gives a powerful expose of this liberal lie (Again I repeat myself):

    “The irresponsible part isn’t the proposed spending cut, it’s the promise to keep spending growth going without specifying how you’ll pay for it. If President Obama were proposing tax increases to match his future spending growth, then this would be a fair attack. But he is not. More generally, the Obama fiscal path and campaign message rely on the false presumption that everything will be OK if we raise tax increases only on the rich and make small, mostly painless spending cuts. This is incorrect. Whether you support spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination, you need to make big, structural fiscal policy changes to get on a long-term sustainable fiscal path. Our federal government spending path is seriously out of whack and minor adjustments won’t fix it.”

    Of course, that is “Greek” to the stupid liberal liar (I repeated myself twice!) and the execrable, catholic left.

  • It’s not just the Catholic left, but the holier than thou Catholic right that is attacking the Ryan pick. Lisa Graas is critical of the Ryan pick, because, umm, Ayn Rand and stuff.

    Evidently Ryan’s once having praised Ayn Ran signifies that Paul Ryan wants to eat babies or something.

    The silly season never ends.

    BTW, the Ryan pick does little to move me personally. As I’ve said before, the Vice Presidency is really a nothing position, and the fact of the matter is Mitt Romney is still at the top of the ticket. That being said, Ryan is arguably the most solid all-around conservative on any GOP ticket since Reagan, and I say that as someone who is still a fan of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. It’s also possible that Ryan will be slightly more involved in a Romney administration’s policy setting than a typical VP.

  • Paul Ryan.

    What I like: his view of Catholic social teaching, his firm pro-life convictions, his public confrontation with Obama.

    What I don’t like: his support for the bailouts, neo-con foreign policy (yes blah blah blah there is no such thing as “neo-conservatism” I know save it for another time), support for the Patriot Act.

    What I don’t care in the least about: his one time approval of Ayn Rand, which any honest person, having read what he has had to say for himself, would not hold against him.

    Romney made a wise decision. While I was hoping that he would choose Rand Paul, with whom I agree on almost every issue, Paul Ryan is certainly an acceptable and appreciable choice from my point of view. While I am not quite as enthused as I would have been had he chosen Rand, I am still pleased, and not at all disgusted has I would have been had he chosen someone like Rubio.

  • Rozin makes a very telling point, when he writes, “Even more to the point, the public would have become like Greeks Italians and Spaniards rioting for more government handouts.”

    As Talleyrand said, “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people.”

  • “Lisa Graas is critical of the Ryan pick, because, umm, Ayn Rand and stuff.”

    She sometimes posts here so it would be good if she made her argument here. From what I can tell the two biggests arguments are with Ryan’s support for Capitalism. She quotes the CCC which condemns unbridled Capitalism. I hope she is aware of the Church’s support for Capitalism which is regulated and ordered towards the good.

    She also seems to take Ryan’s support for Rand’s individualist philosophy as damning. I do not know much at all about what in particular he supports in this philosophy. If it is that there are no responsibilites apart from the self, then he is wrong. If it is that there are individual persons with rights, wants and desires which are legitimate and are to be fulfilled, then I don’t think he is acting contrary to the Faith.

  • Finally, for now at least, she needs to explain how Ryan “undermines the Bishops on economic issues” and “DEFINES what Catholicsim is” in this interview:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/05/25/exclusive_paul_ryan_responds_to_catholic_budget_controversy

    Ryan actually seems to have a greater understanding of Catholic Social Teaching than most Catholics – including Lisa.

  • One thing I’ve noticed in the more mainstream and conservative non-religious press. They’re treating this as a confirmation that Romney is going 100% economic issues in the campaign. I don’t know. It seems to me that Ryan potentially opens up the social front that Romney has been avoiding. Now, Ryan is a Kempite, so every social thing he says is phrased as an economic issue, but if he gets past that a little he can be hitting the administration on a lot of issues other than the budget.

  • Social good and common justice teaching: ethanol mandate forced by Obama is harming poor by soaring food price. And, it was renewed for farmer votes not to save Mother Erda.

    The catholic left and right have one thing in common. That is minimal familiarity with the facts in the real world.

    Romney/Ryan will not end the welfare state as we know it. The welfare state as we know it will self-destruct and take the USA down, too.

  • Paul Ryan has been praised for saying, “If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas.”

    I’m all for moderate realists in government, but is the problem with Ayn Rand really her epistemology?

  • As Talleyrand said, “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people.”

    Stop it.

  • Tom, as I understand it, Rand held that no speculation about anything but the universe can be made from inside the universe. We’re limited by our senses. Any claim of religion was thus an arbitrary assertion. So it really was her epistemology that disallowed religious faith.

  • As an escapee of the third world I must warn that one shouldn’t forget how incredibly important it is to not let Mr Obama get a second term. Do not loose sight of that! Sheesh

  • Thanks, Pinky. There’s a certain amount in what you describe that a Thomist could at least work with, in a seldom deny/always distinguish way — though I expect he’d need to be working with a better thinker (e.g., one less prone to arbitrary assertion) than Rand to get anywhere.

  • Pinky: “Tom, as I understand it, Rand held that no speculation about anything but the universe can be made from inside the universe. We’re limited by our senses. Any claim of religion was thus an arbitrary assertion. So it really was her epistemology that disallowed religious faith.”

    Faith is a gift from God to which man’s response is called religion. This is why our First Amendment guarantees RELiGIOUS FREEDOM, because government cannot concoct Faith or Faith in God. Only God does, and with the ostracizing of the Person of God there is only DOOM of every stripe.

  • “Their Creator” created man in original innocence, filled with Justice and all unalienable rights as deserving of the INNOCENT: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This original innocence is the form of the human body. The newly begotten human being composed of body and soul begins to grow. He has taken on the original sin of mankind, called concupiscence. However, as the sovereign person he is, he has not committed any crime deserving of the death penalty by his inclusion in the human kind.

    Mitt Romney introduced Paul Ryan as “president’ of the United States. When was the last time Obama introduced Biden, a constituent of the president, as “president”? Paul Ryan is truly a constituent of Mitt Romney. Would that Barack Obama considered his constituents: no different than himself. As President, all citizens are constituents of the president, and ought to be considered as such, and may be referred to as “president”. Romney’s mistake exposed Romney’s appreciation for and respect for Ryan as a future constituent, as opposed to Ryan being a chess piece in a political ploy.

    Biden was chosen because the VP’s chair needed to be kept warm. Biden’s only useful purpose is to make Obama look smart, but Barack has not learned to keep his laws off my gonads. My sexual intimacy is not ordained to be governed by or dictated to by the HHS mandate, not by Sebelius, not by Obama…andbiden.

    The HHS mandate claims to proscribe the marital intimacy according to abortificients, and contraception, none of which have been proven safe and/or effective. Would anyone walk across the street with a 12% chance of not getting to the other side? Would anyone walk across the street to catch HIV/aids, herpes, papiloma virus, even the cancer virus? The Affordable Healthcare Act has become the law of the land and if one chooses to live one’s life in purity and privacy, the hhs mandate intrudes into the intimacies of the procreative act by inflicting the cost of the practice of lust on Obama’s constituents. Obama will next decree that consecrated men and women, priests and nuns perform the intimate procreative act since the human conscience is no longer acknowledged in a court of law. Hitler did.

    Obama has assumed the direction of all sexual intimacies. That which he approves, he funds, that which he rejects, Obama opposes. Gonad for gonad, Barack owns us all. Barack has never read the bible where God says”…for you are men sacred to me”, where God calls all men to sanctity.
    Barack keep your laws off my gonads.
    PAUL RYAN IS A GOOD MAN

  • I am happy at the Paul Ryan pick.

    Defeat Obama. Defeat that godless, iniquitous man of sin and depravity no matter what!

  • “she needs to explain how Ryan “undermines the Bishops on economic issues” ”

    I’d like to know too, so I can encourage him to keep doing it.

    The bishops are not economists. They undermined themselves when they signed off on Alinsky’s program of radical agitation and community organizing to achieve “economic justice” back in the mid-20th century, and will not redeem themselves on economic issues until they extricate the views of that atheistic menace from their social statements.

    Catholics must not be guilted into believing that ideological pronouncements always trump cost-benefit analysis. When people try to push through economic programs that ignore or downplay real costs in the name of idealism, they end up doing far more harm to the common good they claim to be serving. If the proper end of economics truly is the common good, then how economies work must be studied objectively and this knowledge must be fully respected when drafting and implementing any plan. The natural rights of individuals to private property, explicitly recognized and defended in Church teaching, must also be respected.

    This is manifestly not what is taking place among left-wing Catholic social justice agitators, all the way up to the bishop’s conference.

  • More than fifty new federal agencies are required to implement and regulate Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act. Saving a few tax dollars on contraception will be offset by the millions of tax dollars required to fund the regulatory process of the Healthcare Act, a cost that is normally absorbed by the insurance corporations. It appears that the Healthcare Act is only another means of granting corporate welfare, and having the tax payers pick up the cost, funding insurance corporations on the backs of ordinary citizens.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama does not really care whether you use contraceptives or not, as long as Obama can usurp our fiduciary prerogatives, as though the people do not own our own money, but Obama does.

  • Pingback: Paul Ryan For Veep | contentconservative
  • I am soooo looking forward to the Vice Presidential debates. I’ll wager Slow Joe is not.

    I am happy about the pick but not complacent. The mudslinging in this campaign (with the media joyously aiding and abetting Obama) will sicken every decent person in the country . If Ryan ever failed to return a library book or swiped a piece of penny candy from a mom-and-pop store when he was 10, we’ll hear about it. Oh, and of course, he wants to kill grandma. Since they can’t possibly slander him as being stupid, they’ll go for evil.

    Donald, I hope you and yours enjoy your visit to Badgerland!

  • Pinky & Tom K

    Kant said the same thing. Now, Kant came from a Lutheran Pietist background, with all Luther’s contempt for human reason and his stark contrast between faith and reason. For him, God and the immortality of the sole were postulates of practical (moral) reason – Otherwise morality made no sense.

    Kant influenced pretty well every philosopher who came after him and his ideas have even filtered down to the philosophically illiterate, in the all-too-familiar and lamentable distinction between “truths of fact” (the province of science) and “truths of value” (knowable only from experience and so purely subjective).

    Rand, I imagine, picked them up out of the rubbish-bin of the then current Logical Positivism – refuted on its own terms by Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.”

    All which might be relevant, if Mr Ryan were being considered for a Chair of Philosophy, rather than the Vice-Presidency of the United States

  • Bonchamps 12 Aug; 6:12PM:

    A+

    The bishops’ flawed economics is forgivable. I doubt if Econ 101 was a required course in the seminary.

    What is unforgivable is the failure to condemn liberals’ vicious agendae of class hate and of every intrinsic evil known to man.

  • Amen T Shaw (well pretty much Amen–unforgivable is along time– how about harder to forgive?)

    also Michael P Seymour Tom and Pinky– just to add to the philosophy, theology, epistemology– think of the intellectual contributions of Luigi Giussani. “The Religious Sense” etc — his work is something I would love to suggest to Paul Ryan

    if you haven’t read him here’s an intro bio: http://www.clonline.org/storiatext/eng/biography.htm

  • As a VP pick, Ryan was a shrewd move. It is still a long way to election day, but making a safe, smart pick, is a good sign. The $0.30/gallon jump in gas prices over the last few weeks also hurts the O’s chances. I have also heard a few 2008 O supporters saying they will go Romney this round. While it is anyone’s race, I am a little more optimistic of Romney’s chances.

  • CONSPIRACY THEORY OR CONSPIRACY
    The Affordable Healthcare Act is laying the burden of implementation and regulation on the tax payers, 52 new federal regulatory agencies, freeing the insurance corporations from the cost of carrying on business as usual.

    When Hilary Clinton wrote the healthcare bill for Bill Clinton, she owned ten healthcare provider corporations. Clinton also provided for two years in federal prison for any doctor who dared heal a patient not in his quadrant. Needless to say the doctors were against her plan. Since nobody knows what is in Obamacare, there may be two years in federal prison for everybody, and especially for those who speak out against Obamacare.

    Some speculate that the premium for Medicare or Affordable Healthcare, now, $99 for seniors on Social Security will go to $240 per month by 2014. The sky is the limit, since Obama can now take all the money he wants. And people will be reduced to demanding some of our tax dollars back from the government in Washington. D. C.

    The Affordable Healthcare Act is a vehicle for Obama to take all of our social security as premiums, and the law says participants cannot opt out. For seniors, it used to be food or heat, now it will be food or Obama.

    Many senior citizens help their grandchildren and great grandchildren with their social security. So, once again Obama is taking from our future generations.

  • I was very happy to hear Paul Ryan was on the ticket. No one can explain his budget better than he can. I’ve seen him on with Raymond Arroyo and he makes it very clear. He has also said he was impressed with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged when he was young. If he read her when I did in late high school that makes sense. He also said he later could not agree with her philosophy and preferred Thomas Aquinas. Someone has to bring the truth of this economy to the people who think it can’t “really” go broke because Obama keeps giving free stuff away. Who was it who said …and beggars would ride like kings? And much as I love the USCCB, they have to get over the idea that government dole is a good thing.

  • T Shaw,
    I will work on being as forgiving as you. While I don’t fault the bishops for getting much of their economic reasoning wrong (for the reason you suggest), I do fault them for weighing in so confidently on something they know so little about. I’m a world class “I don’t know” guy. I am not afraid to share opinions, but only on matters that I have studied sufficiently to warrant sufficient confidence. The Bishops’ economics pastoral was embarrassing and smacked of unwarranted hubris.

  • So why isn’t Paul Ryan at the top of the ticket again?

  • MP: I have observed that ignorance is closely associated with arrogance/hubris. The arrogant don’t know that they don’t know. In Greek tragedies, hubris was the formulaic, fatal flaw that brought down the great man.

    When I was in school, I was taught (once I was thinking instead of drinking) that tragedies had unhappy endings while comedies had happy endings.

    If Obama is re-elected America will be a tragedy.

    PV: Probably because Ryan has no executive experience. He didn’t catch on in the primaries.

    Ryan drove the Oscar Meyer wienermobile then was elected to Congress.

    Barry Soetoro led the choom gang; went to Columbia and Yale, but can’t show we the people any transcripts; enlisted in the class war with ACORN; and lied his way into the Senate from fiscally and morally bankrupt Illinois.

    We now are experiencing how horrid can be a president that never had a real job.

    Can you explain why Obama is running from Soetoro? Why he felt the need to lie under oath? Why is he ashamed of it?

  • “Probably because Ryan has no executive experience. He didn’t catch on in the primaries.”
    John F. Kennedy was a senator who had no executive experience.
    I believe that the USCCB are bishops begging for our tax dollars back from the government, casting themselves as disenfranchised second class citizens, to whom the government responds with contempt. Right now, neither they, nor anyone has any choice as the government has dictated that money be extorted for public entitlements.
    Why do the bishops believe that the poor will be worse off with Paul Ryan? If the people will be free of buying reckless, useless and damaging entitlements there will be more for the poor.

Pat Murphy of the Irish Brigade

Saturday, August 11, AD 2012

Something for the weekend.  Pat Murphy of the Irish Brigade sung by Bobby Horton, who has waged a one man crusade to bring Civil War music to modern audiences.  Immigrants, especially Irish and German, were a mainstay of the Army of the Potomac, and wherever you have Irish fighting you are going to have Irish songs about the fighting.

For the great Gaels of Ireland

Are the men that God made mad,

For all their wars are merry,

And all their songs are sad.

G. K. Chesterton

Continue reading...

Obama’s Psychotic Statements on the HHS Mandate

Friday, August 10, AD 2012

The Catholic News Agency published some remarks made by President Obama in Denver yesterday (Aug. 9) regarding the HHS contraception mandate that are so deluded and irrational that it becomes difficult to imagine how this country can possibly continue forward. We are dealing now with a level of dishonesty that is so open and aggressive that reasonable discourse, upon which social peace ultimately rests, is fast becoming impossible.

This is what Obama said about Mitt Romney’s opposition to the mandate:

“It would be up to the employer to decide. Your boss, telling you what’s best for your health, your safety,” the president said.

“I don’t think your boss should get to control the health care that you get. I don’t think that insurance companies should control the care that you get. I don’t think politicians should control the care that you get.”

This is Barack Obama speaking. The man whose healthcare vision is about to be foisted on the American people, in which they will be forced to buy health insurance (by politicians, from insurance companies) or face official penalties, just said that he doesn’t think politicians and insurance companies should control the care that we get.

Some statements are so at odds with reality – in this case, a reality established by Obama himself – that they can only be described as psychotic. The psychosis continues with the idea that without the HHS mandate, employers would, and indeed, have been, deciding what is best for their employee’s health. It never entered Obama’s psychotic mind that a desire not to cover what HHS mandates could, and almost always does, revolve around the employer’s desire to avoid something he finds morally objectionable, in which case it has absolutely nothing to do with dictating employee’s health. No, when a man in a position of relative power, the employer, decides what he will and will not pay for his employees to have, it is necessarily an aggressive and unjust exercise of power by the master over the subordinate in the psychotic mind of the president.

It doesn’t matter that on every corner of every major street of every town and city in the United States is a CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid or local drug store that is brimming with contraceptives that are legal for anyone to purchase. It doesn’t matter that there are clinics that provide abortions and sterilizations for those who want them. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t a single employer in the nation that can legally force people to work for them and thus deny them the opportunity to work for someone who is willing to offer a plan that covers such things. All of these conditions, which collectively taken together, any sane man would recognize as a condition of freedom (at least relatively) as far as health and reproductive choices are concerned, mean nothing to Obama. They mean nothing to the hordes of bleating drones who have dutifully towed the party line on this issue either.

The layers of insanity go even deeper. Obama himself has created the conditions under which businesses with 50 or more employees must eventually provide health insurance (by 2014). He has forced this responsibility onto the employers of America. He then proceeds not only to insult them with his “you didn’t build that” remarks (some potential business owners won’t be building anything thanks to Obamacare), but to prohibit them from exercising their preferences, moral or otherwise, in how they go about doing it. And yet to hear Obama speak, one might think that employers themselves demanded Obamacare just so they could have power over their employees that they didn’t have before, and that the HHS mandate had to exist for this reason. This isn’t just a false picture of reality, but a deranged one.

Finally, Obama speaks as if employers making decisions about what they will cover or not cover in their health plans is something new, as opposed to the way it has been since health plans came into existence. All this time, apparently, bosses have been dictating to workers what is best for their health by not paying for their condoms and vasectomies. Obama has now freed us from the tyranny of having to pay for certain things we want with our own money. People who view reality this way can’t be reasoned with by people who don’t.

Looking at Obama’s recent rhetoric, a phrase keeps emerging. He keeps referring to America as “one American family”, especially when there is a tragedy in the news. Some commentators are even beginning to see him as a father figure (try not to wretch if you watch the clip). There is no doubt in my mind that he seems himself as the father of the nation, laying down rules for some of his more stubborn children, insisting that they share their toys with one another. That is how he sees the businessmen of America. And as for the religious conservatives, they are the cranky old uncle who is grudgingly tolerated but also increasingly despised by the more content members of Barack’s family. In neither case is there respect for what they do or what they represent. There is no respect for them as autonomous, rational beings with their own convictions. They’re just stubborn children or senile geriatrics, they aren’t mature and rational like Obama and his friends. He isn’t even a politician, not in his own psychotic mind. He is self-excluded from that list of people who want to “control what healthcare we get.” He isn’t controlling us; knowing us better than we know ourselves, he is guiding us, in spite of ourselves. He is our father.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Obama’s Psychotic Statements on the HHS Mandate

  • “hordes of bleating drones”

    Win.

  • “you didn’t build that”. If one of my tax dollars built that, I built that… road, bridge, public school. Obama is taking away from the sovereign person his identity: “I AM”. I built, I have. I am in reality a human being, who is created by “their Creator”, not by Obama’s fiat, acknowledgement or recognition, but by the existence and name given to me by God; “I AM”.

  • This is posted anywhere and everywhere any one will read it, because it is what it is. One very important clarification: The Affordable Health Care Act is written so that Sebelius has complete power to rewrite any portion or clause. If President Obama were to give the whole Catholic population an accommodation, for conscience, for freedom of religion, for any value system, the accommodation can be withdrawn or redrawn the day after election. That is the way the contract for the Affordable Healthcare Act was written. No informed consent from any citizen. No ballot, no will of the people. Only dictatorship from Obama.

    The day after his inauguration in 2009, Obama did this with the Mexico City policy which had prevented American tax dollars to be used to abort Mexican people.

  • “The layers of insanity go even deeper. ….. Obama himself has created the conditions under which businesses with 50 or more employees must eventually provide health insurance (by 2014). He has forced this responsibility onto the employers of America. … He then proceeds not only to insult them with his “you didn’t build that” remarks (some potential business owners won’t be building anything thanks to Obamacare), but … to prohibit them from exercising their preferences, moral or otherwise, in how they go about doing it. … And yet to hear Obama speak, one might think that employers themselves demanded Obamacare just so they could have power over their employees that they didn’t have before, … and that the HHS mandate had to exist for this reason. ….. This isn’t just a false picture of reality, but a deranged one.”

    From bookkeeping experience, thankfully past, I saw that the first priority of an operating budget with integrity was payroll which included health insurance and federal/state taxes.

    Where will the HHS braintrust be when Affordable Care reveals its nature to those who will begin to be denied coverage for this or that, when copays etc. are raised and changed? Affordable to the government, the employer, or the employee?

    Just looking at the national debt ticker tape in the light of bailouts and money blown on privileges already, that the government can’t afford this is plain to see.

    Employers have access to state and federal programs which benefit them to employ those already receiving free medical from government social programs.

    Employees have choices from employers which ACA will end.

    And the nitpicking enforcement of the whole reproductive issue is laughable because the offerings are already in place and have been. No issue.

    The filling of a tooth cavity may not be so. I know a caring elderly dentist who has special prices for this necessity for patients denied coverage by Medi…. .

    Speaking of these symptoms of psychosis, which appears to be contagious, a growing contagion, the empty talk about helping the poor is pretty empty.

    A food pantry/soup kitchen is looking for funding from churches, businesses, and organizations this year. Because –
    Federal Government: 10/08 to 9/09 gave $22,200
    10/09 to 9/10 gave $12, 000
    10/10 to 9/11 had No Offer to help with 2012

    Catholic Charities: from $17,000 to $15,000 for 2012.

    Where does admin get off talking about helping the poor while slamming the Catholic Church?

    (Many of the people fed were misusers of food stamps but that money went into the economy intensive care unit – so good.)

  • Here I paraphrase Alabama Football Coach Bear Bryant. It ain’t psychotic if it’s a lie.

    Each day It becomes more apparent. Liberals are stupid.

  • I like a good generalization, T. Shaw, but ‘liberals are stupid’ doesn’t work for me. How about, liberals are tree-hugging morons? How about, liberals are a stupid-spreading virus that’s turning America into a retard-state? Put some punch and exaggeration into your generalization, and it’ll work a lot better. Trust me, I have experience.

    I guess I could be serious for a moment, and recall that both democrats and republicans are (generally) liberals, in the Pre-Vatican II Catholic lexicon. And Liberalism, at heart, is the religion of the Age of so-called Reason, by which God became either non-existent or non-important. Liberals are, unfortunately, quite clever and thoughtful, and wise in a worldly sense. It has allowed them to make TVs and rocket ships, as well as condoms and nukes. We poor Catholic who are born into this Liberal Utopia-project are mesmerized by its technological idols. We even rant against it with their most faithless creation — the computer.

    And yet our rants reveal the problem: we aren’t thinking anymore. We are venting, and mostly to (or against) one another. We play their game nicely by pretending that one side or the other is wrong, when in fact the game is rigged: both ‘sides’ are liberal.

    Traditional Catholicism (which includes the Catholic Worker movement), offers a powerful critique of the doomed modern project. The summary is simple but astounding: we are all on the Titanic, folks. This ship is going down, regardless of who captains it.

    Whether Obama or Romney is elected matters less than whether we maintain our faith to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and to Christ its King. ‘Flee to the Fields’ has been the Traditional Catholic teaching since Chesterton and Pius and Dorothy Day. Spend your angry energy not on painting up Obama as the psychotic problem, but on the psychotic iceberg called Liberalism: an iceberg that has already ripped an unfixable hole in Western Civilization. All we can hope for is to get enough people to the lifeboats, and to teach people why it all went down.

    I recommend Spe Salvi and Peter Maurin’s Easy Essays.

  • Nate,

    Thanks!

    All generalizations are wrong including this one.

    Only two corrections for your post:

    One, I am thinking. I am wracking my weak brains to come up with means for my children and grandchildren to survive the impending economic and societal cllapse.

    Two, I ain’t smart enough to understand all that essay stuff.

    Here’s a generalized (remember: all gener . . . ) statement for how we got where we are: “The general causes of the great recession (I don’t tink it’s so great!) are depraved US government fiscal/monetary policies and similar profligacy in the private sector.”

  • I like a good generalization,

    Clearly you do, because you then write:

    I guess I could be serious for a moment, and recall that both democrats and republicans are (generally) liberals, in the Pre-Vatican II Catholic lexicon. And Liberalism, at heart, is the religion of the Age of so-called Reason, by which God became either non-existent or non-important.

    This is manifestly false, or at least it is false if you are referring to the classical liberals of a certain stripe. This is certainly not true of the classical liberals from the British Enlightenment camp, and for the majority of the classical liberals that made up America’s founding fathers. It is true of the French school and those that followed them, including Jefferson. (Sorry, David Barton, whose book is no longer even being published, by the way).

    We are venting, and mostly to (or against) one another. We play their game nicely by pretending that one side or the other is wrong, when in fact the game is rigged: both ‘sides’ are liberal.

    I think you spent a bit too much time co-blogging with Morning’s Minion. Anyway, this is another generalization that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

    Whether Obama or Romney is elected matters less than whether we maintain our faith to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and to Christ its King.

    This is certainly true. That being said, to ignore the realities of electoral politics is naive at best, potentially poisonous at worst. I’ll have a bit more on the “a pox on both their houses” mentality when I return to blogging next week.

  • I’ll vote for the man who doesn’t mock the builder of the lifeboats.

  • “Whether Obama or Romney is elected matters less than whether we maintain our faith to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and to Christ its King.”

    The religious liberty of Catholics in this country I think has a great deal riding on the outcome of this election. Catholics ignore secular politics at their peril.

  • “Catholics ignore secular politics at their peril.” American citizens ought not have to fight to have the Affordable Heathcare Act, same sex marriage and prayer in public school on the referendum. They ought not have to fight to have crosses in cemeteries and American flags in public places, school and construction sites. The builders of the bridge they were building over Rt. 1 in North Brunswick, N. J. had beautiful American Flags hanging from their cranes. They were ordered to take the American flags down…then 9/11 happened and they were left alone to have our flag. WHO makes the call to atrophy our liberty if all men are created equal?

  • “Spend your angry energy not on painting up Obama as the psychotic problem, but on the psychotic iceberg called Liberalism: an iceberg that has already ripped an unfixable hole in Western Civilization.”

    Another facile generalization. Liberalism has many aspects some of which are positive. For example, John Paul II (not entralled with philosophical liberalism) in Memory and Identity discussed the positive aspects of Liberalism particularly in its recognition of individual rights. He went on to note the positive effects of this aspect of Liberalism on Church thinking in regards to the legitimate place of individual rights.

  • We are dealing now with a level of dishonesty that is so open and aggressive that reasonable discourse, upon which social peace ultimately rests, is fast becoming impossible.

    You nailed it, and it’s really quite frightening thinking of where all this is leading.

  • vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours.

  • I concur with the post whole heartedly. We really are a nation divided against itself at this point. There is only one way to resolve this…. When in the course of human events….

  • Other political discourse developments: Obama’s favorite journalist suspended for plagiarism. Forward!

    Factchecker reports a first: pro-Obama ads’ so totally dishonest, they don’t know where to start.

    And, Obama zombie-women promise to send the GOP National Convention snapshots of their private parts. Yes We Can!

    You may forgive the stupidity, not the evil.

  • 3 . . . 2. . . 1 . . . Paul Ryan is worse than Hitler!!!!!!

  • What dishonesty? What hypocrisy?

    I don’t want to engage in either. Help me grow by pointing out exactly what I said that was dishonest and/or hypocritical.

    Otherwise, you’re just hurling nonsense.

  • Nate,

    “I guess I could be serious for a moment, and recall that both democrats and republicans are (generally) liberals, in the Pre-Vatican II Catholic lexicon.”

    We’re all liberals to some extent. We live in a world shaped by liberalism.

    “And Liberalism, at heart, is the religion of the Age of so-called Reason, by which God became either non-existent or non-important.”

    Some aspects of liberalism are continuations of the Christian natural law tradition. Liberalism often ends up at the negation of God, but certain liberal insights are worth acknowledging.

    “Liberals are, unfortunately, quite clever and thoughtful, and wise in a worldly sense. It has allowed them to make TVs and rocket ships, as well as condoms and nukes.”

    Technological innovation predates modern liberalism and is not synonymous with it. The Church certainly does not oppose technological development.

    “We poor Catholic who are born into this Liberal Utopia-project are mesmerized by its technological idols. We even rant against it with their most faithless creation — the computer.”

    Unless you are proposing that we do away with electronic communication, what’s the point of this?

    “And yet our rants reveal the problem: we aren’t thinking anymore. We are venting, and mostly to (or against) one another. We play their game nicely by pretending that one side or the other is wrong, when in fact the game is rigged: both ‘sides’ are liberal.”

    I didn’t even mention the word liberalism, or condemn Obama on the grounds that I believe he is a liberal, or make this a partisan issue. So I hope this doesn’t apply to my post. I certainly don’t think that liberalism necessarily entails the psychotic delusions Obama has indulged in. Those are a product of his ego and myopia.

    “Traditional Catholicism (which includes the Catholic Worker movement), offers a powerful critique of the doomed modern project.”

    When the Catholic Worker movement is truly anarchist, it does. When it is just a cover for radical left-wing politics, which are technocratic and coercive, then it is nothing but a department of the “modern project.”

    “The summary is simple but astounding: we are all on the Titanic, folks. This ship is going down, regardless of who captains it.”

    Maybe so. But the people on the Titanic went down with relative dignity. Had they been the sort of people who blindly support Obama, they would have killed each other before the icy water did them in.

    “Whether Obama or Romney is elected matters less than whether we maintain our faith to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and to Christ its King.”

    Yes. A platitude, but true enough.

    “‘Flee to the Fields’ has been the Traditional Catholic teaching since Chesterton and Pius and Dorothy Day.”

    You and Chesterton can flee to the fields. Christianity grew in the crucible of urban civilization, in the streets of the Greek city-states, in the catacombs of imperial Rome. Where do you think one finds the poorest people, in terms of material and spiritual goods? A Christian who “flees to the fields” is like a doctor who flees to a sterile environment. The sinners are in the cities.

    “Spend your angry energy not on painting up Obama as the psychotic problem, but on the psychotic iceberg called Liberalism: an iceberg that has already ripped an unfixable hole in Western Civilization. All we can hope for is to get enough people to the lifeboats, and to teach people why it all went down.”

    Obama’s actions affect us all. We need to be clear on what they are and the extent to which they are detached from a rational view of reality.

    Whether or not it is all doomed to collapse is known only to God. I can only address the problems I can assess.

  • “Otherwise, you’re just hurling nonsense.”

    “vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic…”

    It starts with this first phrase. r eastburg, what are your trying to say there?

  • Eastburg: more proof that liberals are stupid.

    That would be “porcine”, genius.

    If your point is that everybody that isn’t a idiotic, liberal loser is a hypocrite, a liar, or a pig . . .

    You’ve got nothing!

    Again, more proof that using the words “idiot” and “liberal” in the same sentence is repetitive.

  • r eastburg says:
    Friday, August 10, 2012 A.D. at 8:34pm
    vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours.

    There is no such thing as “the church of democracy” In fact, there is no such thing as “the church of social Justice” without the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, which are the virtue of charity, a free will offering to God, the free exercise of free will, conscience and the response to the gift of Faith from God. Now tell me, your eastburg, where is the Supreme Sovereign Being and the sovereignty of each and every citizen in the Affordable Healtcare Act, same sex marriage, abortion, prayer ban. Where is the Person of God? When the Person of God may be ostracized, who is the next peson to be persecuted? all free men.

  • r eastburg
    You mean the ‘moral leaders’ who are
    the ones who point fingers to harass and intimidate and insult?
    the ones who can’t get the facts straight?
    the ones who tell people want they ‘want to hear’?
    the ones whom the truth hurts ?
    the ones who bailout their big business campaign donaters with money they don’t have?
    the ones who are so into legalizing infanticide and indiscriminate sex acts?
    the ones who fly in the face of the US Constitution?
    the ones who make sure they are protected from the ‘poor and powerless’?
    the ones who mock the Catholic religion relentlessly?
    the ones who won’t have dinner with the ‘poor and powerless’?
    the ones who can’t check or prepare budgets to see whether they can keep promises to the ‘poor and powerless’?
    the ones who end up making fools of their ‘poor and powerless’?
    the ones who have lavishly partied without inviting the ‘poor and powerless’?
    the ones who can’t explain their personal wealth – but want that of others?
    the ones who don’t qualify for what they aren’t doing?
    the ones who cheapen and degrade their Catholic identity?

    ” vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours. ” – r eastburg

    You have to stop, look, and listen. In and out of church.
    Romney and Ryan do care about the USA and all its people. They will make sense.

  • I think r.eastburg means to say…

    “….the PROVINCE of American Catholic”

    Anyway, he’s wrong.

  • Pingback: Barack Obama: Enemy of the Catholic Church? : IgnitumToday

Lying Worthless Political Hack Sees Pro-Life Dead People

Friday, August 10, AD 2012

 

 

 

“Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.”

Susan B. Anthony

 

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a\k\a the Lying Worthless Political Hack has been in the habit of making bizarre statements on a regular basis throughout her political career.  However, she recently topped herself:

 

My chair was getting crowded in,” said Pelosi. “I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since.”

“My chair was getting crowded in and I couldn’t figure out what it was, it was like this,” she said.

“And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were,” said Pelosi. “More than I named and I could hear them say: ‘At last we have a seat at the table.’ And then they were gone.”

Well, okay.  Assuming that the Lying Worthless Political Hack wasn’t simply hitting the sauce early in the day, I wonder what these ghosts would say to Pelosi.  Considering that Pelosi is a total pro-abort, perhaps they would have said something like this:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Sees Pro-Life Dead People

  • Power to the people!

    Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment . . . No, wait!

    They figured out how not to count soldiers’ votes, maybe they can discount women’s votes, too.

  • “Assuming that the Lying Worthless Political Hack wasn’t simply hitting the sauce…”

    Perhaps Botox got to her brain.

  • May almighty God descend upon you and remain with you forever, Donald McClarey. Next to Holy Scripture, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution this post stands forever.

  • Phillip: It is not Nancy Pelosi’s brain, it is her heart that has ceased.

  • As far as the 2012 election, the pro-choice issue is the one issue that I disagree with in
    the presidential election. I am whole heartedly supporting Obama in the medical and social issues, but I, as many Catholics, cannot support anyone who says it is okay to destroy a human life in its mother’s womb.

  • Women had by that time held 11 of the 15 cabinet offices. Rice and Spellings were cabinet secretaries at the time. But the spirits rushed right past them and sat down with Nancy Pelosi, because that was the first time that women had a seat at the table.

    If the most important thing was having a woman at the table, if she had had a cold that day, would she have sent Bachmann in her place? Because after all, the ghosts of women had been waiting for this day, it wouldn’t have been right to send Hoyer.

  • The part about the seat at the table, more than her getting crowded by whom the vision entailed, reminds me of some words of Jesus from the Gospels on seats at tables and vision sources.

    Matthew 23: 1 – 36
    Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying,

    “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
    Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

    They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders,
    but they will not lift a finger to move them.

    All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
    [ Before some comment, here is the history footnote for non-historians:
    …Phylacteries: the Mosaic law required that during prayer small boxes containing parchments on which verses of Scripture were written be worn on the left forearm and the forehead.
    …Tassels: The widening of phylacteries and lengthening of tassels were for the purpose of making these evidences of piety more noticeable.]

    They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation “Rabbi”. As for you, do not be called “Rabbi”.

    You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called “Master”; you have but one master, the Messiah.

    The greatest among you must be your servant.

    Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse land and sea to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.

    [read vv 16 -22 because it’s so thoughtworthy ]

    Woe to you , scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint, and dill, and cummin and have neglected the weightier things of the law;
    judgment and mercy and fidelity. These things you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnats and swallow the camel!

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

    [ read 29 – 33 soberly ]

    Therefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes;
    some of them you will kill and crucify,
    some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, whom you murdered between the santuary and the altar. Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

    … all the righteous blood shed these days has to include that of the most innocent babes and Christians in the way of those at the table these days.

  • All,
    This politician is getting what she wants, to make all of us talk about a subject she wants to promote. Remember she sold her soul more than once for earthly gains. She has problems she does not want to admit here.She needs prayer and nothing else. i chose to ignore her.

Declaring War on the Church

Thursday, August 9, AD 2012

Well the above video from the Romney campaign removes all doubt that the HHS Mandate is going to be front and center in the fall campaign.  Obama was campaigning with Sandra Fluke yesterday, as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air details here.  Obama’s war on the Catholic Church, and his attempt to promote schism within the Church, may play a decisive role in the swing states like Ohio that will decide this election.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Declaring War on the Church

  • Someone was there interviewing people as they left the Fluke/Obama rally. It’s an amusing video.

  • Thank you, Donald, for this post!

  • Pingback: Declaring War on the Church | Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana
  • Actually everything is A-OK.

    President Obama, Archbishop Dolan and very likely Mitt Romney will be attending the annual Al Smith Catholic Charities dinner together. It should be a great photo op and good laughs all around!

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | Big ?ulpit
  • The laugh will be on Obama at that dinner I suspect. Carter when he appeared in 1980 was booed while Reagan was received with warmth. We shall see.

  • I’ve got to tune out until election day. News that 2012 is shaping up to be a replay of 2008 is too depressing for words. I can’t begin to imagine why my fellow Americans voted for Mr. Obama to begin with, much less why they’d do so again. Here we are though, again watching a GOP challenger slip in the polls. This time though, it is astounding that we have an utter failure of policy and the President’s lead grows daily. Remind me again how voting for Santorum was foolish because he couldn’t win a General campaign.

    Give some good news guys. I’m sure I’m not the only loyal reader who needs it!

  • Sure, check out Rasmussen. He is the only pollster who polls 15000 people each month in a huge survey to determine party strength. His polls over the past month have usually shown Romney with about a two point lead:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    His party id poll currently shows the Republicans with a slight advantage over the Democrats, which is death for the Democrats in the coming election. Most other election polls that you see floating around are junk with no likely voter screen and usually something like a D6-D9 advantage for the Democrats in the percent of people sampled, which is simply absurd this year. Junk data makes for junk polls.

  • Wow. “Be Not Afraid!” was an eloquent choice for Mitt Romney to quote the Pope. Yes he is trying to appeal to Catholic voters, and I hope Catholic voters listen, stay informed be active and pray. Be Not Afraid.

    We can Not be afraid of what almost seems cataclysmic around us culturally and politically.

    When I hear those words and think of young Karol W lying face down hiding from Nazis – he knew what he was talking about when he said not to be afraid.
    And the brave people of Ukraine, Latvia — saints- who kept their faith in the face of real evil. The little prayer book in my purse is called “Mary Save Us” – smuggled out of Siberia– the author, Adele, a catechism teacher, did die in the camp.. in the 1950’s.

    I hope voters take this war on religion seriously. All you eastern europeans now in heaven pray for us.

  • Don,

    I’ve seen many other polls showing the opposite.

    I still think Obama is going to win in a squeaker, but I hope to be proven dead wrong.

  • Anzlyne: “All you eastern europeans now in heaven pray for us.” All the saints and angels in heaven, pray for us.”

  • Tito, you have to look at the poll internals. Gallup, which is the best poll after Rasmussen, shows Obama with a one or two point lead usually over the past 30 days. Polls which show Obama with a large lead are simply junk with too many Democrats sampled and usually no likely voter screen.

  • The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams. Only the voters can stop Obama’s rape of little children’s conscience rights. Walesa knows the evil and Walesa is endorsing for Romney.

  • “The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams.”

    Source Mary? I have never read that.

  • Gallup polls registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the major which uses a likely voter screen as a matter of course. I think NPR has attempted that as well.

  • Just which is the constituency to whom Sandra Fluke would appeal?

  • Correct Art. Assuming a two point decrease for Obama in a switch to a likely voter screen, Rasmussen and Gallup have been very close in their numbers this cycle.

  • “Just which is the constituency to whom Sandra Fluke would appeal?”

  • I got a call today from a pollster asking a bazillion questions about mainly local and state races, about name recognition for various local/state candidates and whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them, etc. I wasn’t completely decided about several of the races she asked about, and didn’t really have any opinion on some of the people she mentioned, but when she asked how likely I was to vote, I said “very likely” and when she asked whether I would vote for Romney or Obama I said “definitely Romney.” So maybe I just nudged the polls a tiny fraction of a point in the “red” direction….

  • I am interested in whether there is a poll taking demographic – if that is a correct term for polls about which I agree with G-Veg – that counts people who decline participation.

    A month or so ago, there was a call from someone who said they were from Gallup and I declined participation. Maybe caller ID would be helpful. I’ve seen some very long alpha-numeric ID’s, city-state ID’s, and other generic words (like service) and am wary.

    Just a glimmering hope that many may remain silent in resolve in this intimidating atmosphere, such as when using lawn signs or bumper stickers causes an occasion for sin for someone.

  • Lord Courtney famously remarked that there are lies, damned lies and statistic.

    It is worth noting that the noble lord was not merely an excellent mathematician (he was Senior Wrangler at Cambridge) but a President of the Royal Statistical Society (1897 – 1899)

  • War on the Church?

    Don’t worry about the Church.

    Worry about Obama.

    They declared war on drugs 50 or 60 years. Who won that one?

  • Donald McClarey says: “The communist government officials raped Lech Walesa’s daughters while he waited in the next room listening to their screams.”

    Source Mary? I have never read that.

    Ask Lech Walesa. Walesa is the most reliable source.

  • Link to where you read this Mary. If you do not I will delete the comments referencing this. I have a strong love of history and I will not allow statements like that to remain on this blog if they are not based on fact.

  • I am sorry Donald, I do mean to be rude. I saw Lech Walesa on television weeping, his hands to his eyes, confessing what he had endured, and this is what he confessed: that “the communists took his minor daugters into the next room and he heard them screaming”. This happened when the communists tried to break Walesa and Solidarnocs (sp) the Gdansk shipyard solidarity encouraged by John Paul II, something one does not forget decades later. The fact that Walesa is still alive and can vouch for the truth of this is relevant. Otherwise you may do as needs to be done.

  • That is fine Mary. I am sure you heard what you heard. I can find no reference to the incident but I will let the comments stand based upon what you heard Walesa say.

  • Thank you, Donald. I am thinking too, of Jerzy Popielusko (sp), the Cathoic priest whom the communists beat and drowned, who is now up for canonization. I am going to continue to look as this is very relevant to Obama’s election. Obama is a man who will not permit people the use of their free will and their conscience and I see no difference between a war on God, a war on the Catholic Church and a war on the individual person made in the image and likeness of God. There is a very enlightening episode by Fulton J. Sheen entitled “The Glory of Being an American.” Bishop Sheen says that persons make up “WE, the people”. Communism is made up of “the masses”. When the individual no longer has any value to the party, he ceases to exist. The communist party error in that logic is that the communist party did not give the human being existence and therefore cannot take existence away.

2 Responses to Experience

  • As Chief Executive, Obama has the power to implement and enforce the will of the people spoken through Congress. Only Congress has the power to declare war on the Catholic Church, not Sebelius, not the HHS mandate. Only Congress has the power to declare war on God, but Congress has not, the Department of Justice has banned God from the public square, never putting the measure on the ballot. Only Congress has the power to declare war on the newly conceived unborn, but Congress has not declared war on God, the unborn, or on America’s sovereignty, only the Dept. of Justice has. The declaration of war on God, the war on the human being, born and unborn, on America’s virginity, innocence and independence, and on America’s sovereignty is a power assigned by the people and our constitution to Congress.

  • Is the aggregate IQ of the voter 60?

    We will see in November.

Bleeding Christians

Wednesday, August 8, AD 2012

The two churches nearest to him, I have looked up in the office. Both have certain claims. At the first of these the Vicar is a man who has been so long engaged in watering down the faith to make it easier for supposedly incredulous and hard-headed congregation that it is now he who shocks his parishioners with his unbelief, not vice versa. He has undermined many a soul’s Christianity. His conduct of the services is also admirable. In order to spare the laity all “difficulties” he has deserted both the lectionary and the appointed psalms and now, without noticing it, revolves endlessly round the little treadmill of his fifteen favourite psalms and twenty favourite lessons. We are thus safe from the danger that any truth not already familiar to him and to his flock should over reach them through Scripture. But perhaps bur patient is not quite silly enough for this church – or not yet?
At the other church we have Fr. Spike. The humans are often puzzled to understand the range of his opinions – why he is one day almost a Communist and the next not far from some kind of theocratic Fascism – one day a scholastic, and the next prepared to deny human reason altogether – one day immersed in politics, and, the day after, declaring that all states of the world are equally “under judgment”. We, of course, see the connecting link, which is Hatred. The man cannot bring himself to teach anything which is not calculated to mock, grieve, puzzle, or humiliate his parents and their friends. A sermon which such people would accept would be to him as insipid as a poem which they could scan. There is also a promising streak of dishonesty in him; we are teaching him to say “The teaching of the Church is” when he really means “I’m almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort”. But I must warn you that he has one fatal defect: he really believes. And this may yet mar all.

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

 

 

Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who takes up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, has a brilliant fisk at Midwest Conservative Journal detailing how upset some Episcopalians are at the Pope, because so many other Episcopalians are swimming the Tiber:

I said once before that if one of the marks of a genius was the ability to drive otherwise-sane people absolutely bat crap, then Pope Benedict XVI is Albert Einstein.  Come to find out that some Episcopalians are STILL bent about the Ordinariate.  Last weekend, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly did a story about a Maryland Episcopal parish that recently swam the Tiber:

In Bladensburg, Maryland, the Catholic service unfolds smoothly, a comfortable routine for priests and parishioners alike.

But one year ago, members of St. Luke’s parish were devout, devoted Episcopalians. This is the first Episcopal church in the country to convert to Catholicism under Vatican rules designed to attract disaffected Episcopalians.

Father Mark Lewis and his congregation preferred Roman Catholic order to the Episcopal tendency to make crap up as they go along.

We left the Episcopal Church not because we were running away from the issues of the Episcopal Church. We left the Episcopal Church because we were running to the Catholic Church. We came to the point where we realized the theology of the Episcopal Church is what was lacking. The theology of Rome, the authority of Rome, the unity in the Holy See and in the bishops: that was appealing to us.

As did Father Scott Hurd.

There is a real hunger amongst some Episcopalians and Anglicans for authority. It was the question of where can true Christian authority be found that was a key element in this community’s journey.

There wasn’t one particular reason, said congregant Stephen Smith.  There were a whole lot of reasons, each building on the last.

There’s not any one real incident you can point to, but it’s like the strands of a rope giving one by one, and each one weakens the rope as a whole.

Anne Marie Whittaker agrees.

All of a sudden it was do-your-own-thing mass, and there was a lot going on, for instance, a clown mass. I would come in and someone put a red nose on me! I saw children circling altars. One by one, parishes started to succumb to some of these practices in order to attract people, and it made it difficult for me to worship in that atmosphere.

Maryland Episcopal Bishop Eugene Sutton tried hard to be diplomatic.

I like to say that we are really one spiritual family. We believe about 90 percent of things in common. Where we disagree is on matters of authority and some other spiritual matters. But the important thing is that we are not fighting; we are not in competition with one another.

On the other hand, the Rev. Ian Markham, president and dean of the Virginia Theological Seminary, didn’t even try to hide his anger at the papists.

There’s quite a lot of traffic currently going both ways between the two traditions, especially at the level of congregants. What’s interesting here is you’ve got entire congregations and clergy making the shift. So, yeah, I think the Roman Catholic Church is a threat, because we’ve lost the sense of our theological understanding and identity.

How so?

There was a perception that this was poaching by the Roman Catholic Church of Anglicans around the world. It was discourteous, it was stealing sheep, it was unecumenical.

Stealing sheep?  Unecumenical?  In what way?

It’s viewed as not recognizing the value of and integrity of our traditions.

I’ve been covering the Current Unpleasantness since it began nine years ago.  And while some of you might feel the need to get into a theological argument with that line, I have arrived at a point where words like those just make me smile.

I wonder if Markham realizes how pathetic he sounds; I can’t conceive of an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian uttering those words or ever feeling the need to.  Because those words could not possibly occur to any person who is confident about his or her Christian tradition as Markham seems to imply here.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Bleeding Christians

  • “bat crap” I love it. It is interesting to see how some Episcopalians do not understand that man has a ree will and reason and a love for God that is only fulfilled in the Catholic Church.

  • Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who takes up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith

    Hehe. It reminds me of Grandpa Simpson flashing back to his time as a minesweeper in WW2 and repeatedly blowing up his own forces and after the flashback concludes with, “And that’s how I won the Iron Cross!” 🙂

  • Let me do that again, as I was late for Mass.
    “bat crap” I love it. It is interesting to see how some Episcopalians do not understand that man has a free will and reason and a love for God that is only fulfilled in the Catholic Church.”
    Scott W.: Simpson was injuring his own and good people. Christopher Johnson is redirecting the wayward into the TRUTH.

  • Interesting discussion.
    I was interviewed for about 45 minutes and much of what I expressed, unfortunately, was not included.
    At first, I merely dipped my toes into the Tiber, and retreated; I had loved the Episcopal Church’s doctrine and liturgy. It was heart-wrenching for this sheep to leave; but my shepherd abandoned me and was not attentive to the instructions from his Master. It’s wasn’t easy, but I needed to leave for my own soul’s sake. The transition is actually easier than I had imagined. However, I have subsequently learned, to my horror, that many Roman Catholic parishes have also celebrated the infamous, ‘Clown Mass’! I hope that bishops, Archbishops, and Rome put a stop to that sacriligious behavior. At least St. Paul’s Chapel in NYC had a bit of an excuse: after all, they are on Broadway.

  • Anne Marie I am glad you came over! I hope there are no clown masses or other liturgical messes anymore! That seems a lot less likely now with the new translation of the Mass.
    In the parish here the tabernacle was just moved to the center back of the sanctuary from a side place– progress is steady I think. Now if we can just move away from that Dan Schutte music!

  • The problem for the Anglican Church is that, once having rejected authority at the Reformation, it can never succeed in imposing its own. History bears this out: if Canterbury could reject the authority of popes and councils, why should the Puritans submit to the authority of the Convocation of Canterbury?

    Bishop Eugene Sutton really goes to the heart of the matter, when he claims, “we are really one spiritual family.” This only works, if “we” has a definite meaning in extension. Now, for the Catholic, this is simple. As Mgr Ronald Knox put it, “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”

    This is a real test, for it avoids the question-begging approach of defining the Church by its teaching, or the faithful by their tenets, which, inevitable leads to a vicious circle: “The true church is the one that teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.” It is also remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

    It is worth noting that the Edict of Thessalonica (Cunctos Populos) of 380, which established Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire and which stands in pride of place at the beginning of the Codex of Justinian contains no mention of doctrine, but speaks of ““that religion which from then to now declares itself to have been delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”

  • “It’s viewed as not recognizing the value of and integrity of our traditions.”

    About what “traditions” is Spanky speaking?

    Is it the “clown masses”, or the sanctification of sodomy?

    Liberals are stupid.

  • Anzlyne “Now if we can just move away from that Dan Schutte music!”

    Dan Schutte’s music is irreverent and ought to be removed from the church. I agree with you, Anzlyne.

  • I had forgotten that phrase of Lewis, “bat crap crazy”. Or perhaps I was young enough in my journey of life that I could not relate to the full measure of what that could mean. Now I can place a perfect example of what has happened to me and my thought processes in perspective! For in my study of the leadership and direction of my beloved Faith, and the forked road that has been taken what else could it possibly be? We are ALL being driven “bat crap crazy”! “Skrewtape, Skrewptape, Skrewtape!! Ye are alive and well.

  • *blink*
    I’m not sure if it’s an insult to Mr Lewis or a HUGE complement to TAC (or a comment on my sleep deprived self) when I read a long quote from CSL and interpret it as an opening comment from one of our good writers, rather than a classic quote…..

    It’s sad that I can see Priests that would be both, with great ease– as folks might guess from my talk of Father Hippy, Father Vietnam, etc.

Victor Davis Hanson Remembers Gore Vidal and John Keegan

Wednesday, August 8, AD 2012

 

 

Last week Gore Vidal and John Keegan died.  I recalled John Keegan in a post which may be read here.  Gore Vidal I did not recall.  Although I enjoyed two of Vidal’s novels, Julian and Creation, I could not write a post about him without violating the maxim De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.  Fortunately my favorite living historian, Victor Davis Hanson, does not share that inhibition:

Among those guests in 1964 was Gore Vidal, who was not yet 40. I was about eleven and remember him as a stylishly dressed non-stop hair-toucher. He was also vain and condescending — and a big hit at his lecture with the conservative rural crowd. In those days he acted what was known as “witty.” I recall asking my dad whether he was “English,” given that his nose was angled upward and his accent did not sound American (and that he did not seem to like the U.S.). My dad, in the Swedish fashion of honoring work for work’s sake, answered that I should respect any man who could crisscross the country, giving 30 lectures in 30 days.

Vidal certainly had an instinct for saying outrageous things with such erudite authority that we yokels found him fascinating rather than repulsive. As I remember (it has been 48 years since that evening), Vidal spoke for about 30 minutes, but then he wowed the crowd to a standing ovation in the question-and-answer period (his forte), as he advocated the legalization of drugs and prostitution and went on rants about “small town” values.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Victor Davis Hanson Remembers Gore Vidal and John Keegan

  • I am a fan of Mr. Hanson, and I am grateful that he wrote this wonderful tribute to John Keegan. Keegan’s books are a joy to read, and should be required in every 11th/12th grade and college history class.

    As for Gore Vidal–an interesting character, but he always seemed shallow to me.

  • This post raised in my esteem both JK and VDH. I am familiar with KJ’s excellent (I am no judge) “Face”, “Mask”, and “Six Armies” books Thanks!

    As for Vidal, “Never speak ill of the dead.” Being older and close to the VN War, I mainly avoided with heavy drinking the TV Buckley and Vidal “debates.” When I saw them, I wished Bill would throttle the man.

    I missed the press release as I was chasing bass and beer in Canada. Thanks for the news of M. Vidal’s demise. It didn’t make Barron’s.

  • Vidal was the single most respected truther in the American left. Who will come out of the closet to replace him? This is the perfect opportunity for some more evolution.

Tax Dishonesty

Tuesday, August 7, AD 2012

I’ve been listening to music via Pandora a lot recently (while writing) and the result is that although I’ve been hearing more than my usual share of political ads. (Since I don’t watch television or listen to commercial radio, I’m normally exempt from these despite living in Ohio.)

One thing that particularly struck me is the rampant dishonesty in regards to tax policy that’s going around, in part due to the both party’s bad habit of making tax breaks look more affordable by enacting them only for short terms, thus necessitating frequent renewal.

The first bone of contention is the “Bush tax cuts”. These tax cuts, which affected taxpayers all across the income spectrum, are estimated to have a “cost” of $3.3 Trillion over ten years (this “cost” is the combination of foregone theoretical tax revenues and the cost of servicing the debt resulting from federal spending not going down by a similar $3.3 Trillion.) Democrats like to refer to the “Bush tax cuts” as “tax cuts for the rich” and to quote the full “cost” of $3.3 Trillion as being the cost of those cuts. What this ignores is that two thirds of that $3.3T actually went to what President Obama refers to as the middle class (families making less than $250,000 per year.) So while it’s true that the “Bush tax cuts” had a “cost” of “over three trillion dollars”, the attacks against this ignore the fact that two thirds of that total is “tax cuts for the middle class” which Democrats support.

Just to make it even more confusing, Democrats like to call extending the Bush tax cuts “massive tax cuts for the rich”, despite the fact it is simply an extension of tax rates which have already been in place for some time. Republicans, on the other hand, like to refer the potential expiration of the tax cuts as a “massive tax increase.” This is accurate, to the extent that people would indeed experience their taxes going up, but it ignores the inconvenient fact that Republicans wrote the tax cut in such a way as to expire (in order to avoid having to make hard budget decisions to ‘pay for’ the tax cut.)

As if one set of expiring tax cuts that everyone talks about in different ways were not confusing enough, there’s also the Obama payroll tax cut: a cut of 2% in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security. This was never meant to be a permanent tax cut, but rather a short term economic stimulus. Social Security has financial problems to begin with, it doesn’t help to make a significant cut in its funding. (And that’s ignoring the fiction that the money you put into Social Security is the money you’re get out again.)

However, even though both parties have signaled that they’re essentially willing to let the temporary payroll tax cut expire at the end of this year (though both parties hope to see this done as part of a broader overhaul of taxes suited to their own priorities) that hasn’t stopped some commentators and advertisers from characterizing Republican support for letting the cut expire as “a tax increase on the middle class”.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Tax Dishonesty

  • We are running 1.6 trillion deficits annually and we think taking 330 billion out of the private sector is going to improve things? Let me see real cuts in spending, say 1.3+ trillion annually, and I will accept a tax hike. i

  • “I can be influenced by what seems to me to be justice and good sense; but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.” – John Maynard Keynes

    We are all “Keynesians.”

  • Here’s a metaphor (I think from Ron Paul).

    You arrive home and find that the septic system has backed up and is filling the living room.

    It’s about six-feet deep (eight-foot ceiling).

    What do you do? Obama will raise the ceiling. He’s done it before.

  • Let me see real cuts in spending, say 1.3+ trillion annually, and I will accept a tax hike.

    That would be north of a third of current annual federal expenditures. Again,

    1. About 12% of current expenditures are devoted to debt service; you do not want to experiment with stiffing bondholders;

    2. Around about 35% or so of current expenditures are devoted to benefits for the elderly and disabled, who have a limited capacity to adjust to changes in financial circumstances.

    3. Around 3.5% are devoted to veterans’ benefits. Taking a cleaver to these would be less than tasteful at this time.

    4. Close to 25% are devoted to military expenditures, reduction in which are the occasion of some skepticism in Republican circles.

    The sum remaining is less than the $1.3 tn you want to cut.

    People need to think this through.

  • The numbers in this article are not what I’ve come across. More middle class people were affected. Each saving small amounts. Fewer rich were affected, yet saved great amounts. This is due to two facts. First, there are more middle class people. Second, most of the money is made by a small number of rich.

  • Proteios1,
    Seems like you are getting bad information. Feel free to post a link.

Most Mendacious Political Ad Thus Far This Season

Tuesday, August 7, AD 2012

This ad is so filled with lies that it is almost an archetype of the mendacious political ad.  Romney was out of the decision making loop by 1999 at Bain Capital. GS Steel was facing bankruptcy in 1993 when it was purchased by Bain, so if Bain did anything it was to give the fellow in the ad, Joe Soptic, employment for a few more years until the plant he worked at closed its doors in Kansas City in February 2001.  Soptic’s wife?  He says that she got sick “a short time” after the plant closing.She died of cancer in 2006.   She had insurance through her own job at a local thrift store until she injured her rotator cuff and had to quit her job in 2002 or 2003.  Even by the low standards of political ads, this one is despicable.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Most Mendacious Political Ad Thus Far This Season

  • They have to lie to cover for the truly insidious nature of this administration. I wonder if any of the 20,000 individuals whose pensions were eliminated because they were not union members suffered financial or other hardship. I very much doubt that Obama even cares.

  • They can’t talk about Obama’s horrid record. They have nothing, except lies.

  • Here’s a video up on the Delphi pensions:

  • Even CNN sees the pro-Obama ad as a lie:

  • I saw part of this ad & the time line doesn’t even make sense. How low are they going to get to win the re-election of Obama. What about the lay offs under his administration as many of those people lost their healthcare benefits & some must have died. Is Obama to blame? This is getting ridiculous.

  • May the uncool behavior and viciously empty words of this administration become a way to open eyes and divert the heartlessness it fosters and needs.

    Res ipsa loquitor.

    People, young and old, aren’t the stupid bots admin thinks they are, as voters can see that the exempt, protected, and well cushioned admin might as well be speaking about themselves.

  • Even some liberals are calling Obama a liar. Though not necessarily over this ad:

    http://patriotupdate.com/23015/angry-caroline-kennedy-calls-obama-a-liar

  • Joe Soptic is promoting the Affordable Healthcare act as an absolutley necessary piece of legislation. What is telling though, is that he has been coached. Soptic’s language is word for word Obama’s worn out, boring, say a lie often enough and some people will believe it routine. Oh, that was Goebel’s, Hitler’s Nazi propaganda machine. The other and always missing is the repair, the how is this problem to be resolved. if “Mitt Romney is out of touch with families”, Obama is where? wiping out hunger by wiping out hungry people.

  • I’m always amazed at the uncharitable attitude of some Roman Catholics. Surely you didn’t study the same teachings of Jesus that I grew up with in the 1950s. Catholic nuns have banned together to counteract this very sad attitude toward our fellow man that is displayed here. Go back to your Bible folks. You might learn something. “For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son.” As followers of Jesus, what are you giving to the world. Or do you just worship Jesus as a pagan god rather than emulating the life of Jesus and standing up and speaking out for your fellow man. Remember the money changers in the temple? Romney truly is one of them. I’d say shame on you, but you’ve all demonstrated that you know no shame. Shame on Romney for so repeatedly lying to us, but of course, he knows no shame as well.

  • You did not clarify one point. Ranae Soptic was diagnosed with stage iv lung cancer in May of 2006 and lasted about three weeks. Metastatic lung cancer is a death sentance. A complicated chemotherapy regimen might have dragged the process out for a couple of years, or it might have failed. Medical care would not have been much help to this woman. She needed hospice care.

  • Publicists in and around the Democratic Party are commonly talented at finding useful hard-luck stories. I recently saw a network news documentary on the economy in which the reporters claimed that they arrived in their chosen locale (Nashua, NH, as I recall) and knocked-on a door at random looking for people to interview and just happened in their first attempt to locate a three-generation household with 11 people in it. Three of the seven adults were then working, and several of these seven adults were saddled with hopeless medical debts. A little subtlety, guys.

    I tend to suspect that if this story too good to check was the best the Democratic Party could do, there may not be much dirt in Bain’s history. It will now go down the same memory hole they sent the thousands and thousands of pages of Sarah Palin’s emails.

  • “Shame on Romney for so repeatedly lying to us, but of course, he knows no shame as well.”

    Brilliant Sarah. Instead of attempting to defend this despicable, lying ad, you go on a rant against the rest of us and accuse Romney of lying. This ad was made for bitter Democrat partisans like you. Fortunately I think most other people will be repulsed by it.

  • “Catholic nuns have banned together to counteract this very sad attitude toward our fellow man that is displayed here.”

    Here’s the keynote speaker for the nuns who are counteracting this “sad attitude.” This person speaking for a Catholic group is what is sad.

  • Isn’t the ad reason to vote for Romney?

    Here is my equally despicable and dishonest response for the ad: So, Romney killed some guy’s wife!?! Can he do mine?

    Seriously, here is Investor’s Business Daily: “Unable to run on his record, President Hope-and-Change has built a campaign based entirely on scurrilous lies about Mitt Romney. But the latest reaches a historic, despicable low.”

  • “It is becoming clear that Obama is not only intellectually, but also morally unfit to hold the office of President.” Instapundit

    Sarah,

    Because of Obama and his policies,100,000,000 Americans are now on public assistance.

    Here’s is Keynes'( and my) problem with your scurrilous attack.

    “I can be influenced by what seems to me to be justice and good sense; but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.” – John Maynard Keynes

    From day one: Obama has been fomenting class hate and waging class war.

    In conclusion, Kumbaya!!!

  • Yes, and if we use the lying techniques of the Left, we find that Obama’s economic policies are responsible for over 59,000 dead husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters.

    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/08/09/obama_policies_killed_59757_and_counting

    Of course, that’s if we use lies like the left does.

  • ” As followers of Jesus, what are you giving to the world. Or do you just worship Jesus as a pagan god rather than emulating the life of Jesus and standing up and speaking out for your fellow man. ”

    Broad stroke, that. Truth that He gave us about our fellow man includes you and ‘us’, includes much teaching on discerning both good and evil ways, and also about judgments and making judgments.

    For example, think about what and who is in whatever temple being referred to – I take it to mean your current admininstrators – the first year (2008) right out of the gate after swearing oaths to uphold and defend … onto the campaign trail giving how much in bailouts to whom, and so on with extravagant parties, travels, and totally inefficient ‘work’, to an outrageous, irresponsible spending leaving limited resources for future of our young citizens and dependent (welfare) to handle long after for years to come. Worrisome.

    These will remember who made baseless promises with giveaways and also the various voting blocks being mollified by actually breaking God’s law maliciously with mockery and harassment of people trying to uphold it – when they are trying to unravel with efficiency and justice the mess and debt if this is even still the USA.
    Other countries have had name changes in the face of Godless government.
    Worrisome.

    ” Remember the money changers in the temple? Romney truly is one of them. I’d say shame on you, but you’ve all demonstrated that you know no shame. Shame on Romney for so repeatedly lying to us, … ”

    I say, that’s truly your opinion – truly not mine. Trying to understand a little of God’s ways during my life through His written word, and I thank Him for it, the above words are more from wailing and gnashing of teeth in my opinion.

    Sarah, do you realize that you are doing precisely what you are accusing ‘us’ of doing?