Obama Forward!

Sunday, September 30, AD 2012

For only $25.00 you too can have from the official Obama campaign store a portrait of Fearless Leader with his campaign slogan Forward!   Sheesh!  If the Obama campaign must steal  a Nazi slogan, the least they could do is come up with an updated version of the old Hitler Jugend Vorwarts! Vorwarts!

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Obama Forward!

  • Likely Das Obama stole it from Chairman Mao.

    “Most characteristic of this preaching [of the Great Leap Forward] was its utopianism, the promise of a bright future just in the offing, “three years of suffering leading to a thousand years of happiness.” — Franz Schurmann writing in Ideology and Organization in Communist China

    The parallels don’t end with “Vorwart!”, N.B., “three years of suffering leading to a thousand years of happiness.”

    Reality: three years and nine months of misery leading to far more misery.

  • Oh my goodness, coming from a country dealing with socialism propaganda, that poster really freaks me out. May Our Lady help us.

  • The eagle, the creature of St. John the Evangelist and the symbol for the swiftness of Divine Justice flies over the youth core in Hitler’s film. The blood of innocence flows in the O of “forward”. The red ink of debt to fund vice and murder flows in the O of “forward”. Into the red ink of debt and the blood of innocence, the world, led by Obama, sinks into the abyss of the O of forward as Donald McClarey says. The blind leading the blind, both fall into the pit. Obama is not sustained by virtue, nor by angelic love for God, nor by moral compassion, nor by innocence, nor by truth, nor by God. God is removed from our culture. Obama commands the forward removal of God, into the Red Sea of debt and innocent blood.

  • Unfortunately, both Der Fuehrer and Derbama stole the slogan from Wisconsin, my home state. Rumor has it there are petitions floating to rescind the Badger State’s. But that would be only to cave. We won’t.

  • FORWARD TO WISCONSIN needs to be flaunted

  • 1st John 2:18-19

    18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    Many Antichrists: Robespierre, Napolean, Calles, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Obama, etc. Nebuchdnezzer was made to eat grass on all fours like an ox for arrogance such as this. It’s all in Daniel chapter 4.

A Perfect Description of Modern Socialism

Sunday, September 30, AD 2012

Hattip to Neo-neo Con who suggested the connection to me with this post.  Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov has a striking tale of the Grand Inquisitor.  In that tale Christ comes back to earth in Sixteenth Century Seville and is arrested by the Inquisition.  The Grand Inquisitor explains to Christ why He is going to be burned the next day.  At first glance this all appears to be a fairly psychotic anti-Catholic diatribe, but I think it aptly describes not the Church, but modern socialism.  We see it most clearly in this passage:

“‘Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life-like a child’s game, with children’s songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to A Perfect Description of Modern Socialism

  • This is a good time to remind everyone what is the clear Catholic position on socialism In given in encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

    Thank you, Donald.

  • The regime will tax the Churches, and everything else. That means, for the 40% that pay income taxes and itemize deductions, you will not be able to deduct charitable donations.

    They also plan to end your mortgage interest deduction.

    You see, the government owns everything. It decides how much you will get to feed your family.

    Live free or cry.

  • Q: How many examples do we have of nations moving to socialism?
    A: Many.

    Q: How many of those examples ended up providing an improved standard of living for the nation, eliminating poverty, or increasing productivity and innovation?
    A: None.

  • John, A++!!!

    Here are statistics for two recent socialist dreams: Venezuela and Nicaragua.

    Venezuela Chavez rings in 2010 by state rationing of electricity.

    Chávez appears to have huge support from the poor: The Venezuelan poor seem to love Chávez’s nanny state, and his extremely succesful public relations gimmicks. Fidel Castro is Chávez mentor in many ways, and Castro’s pupil is exceeding his master. Sadly, as Revista Veja shows, things are a lot worse since Chávez took power:

    ——————————— -Before Chávez— Now
    People below poverty level——-43%————54%
    Unemployment———————11%————16%
    Income per capita—————-$4,650——–$4,190
    Number of industries————11,000———5,000
    Foreign investment————$2 billion——$1 billion
    Inflation—————————–11%————17%
    Public debt——————$27.5 billion—$44.8 billion

    The (Nicaragua devolution into marxism) economic figures are depressing. From 1950-1975 under the dictator Somoza (whose departure was the one good thing the Sandinistas helped achieve) economic growth was the highest in Latin America: 6.8% per year. Per capita GNP in 1977, just before the Communists took over, was $2500 per person. In 1990, when the Sandinista regime fell, per capita GNP was $500 per person. That was the great achievement of liberation theology in Nicaragua.

    Zimbabwe is even more tragic.

    And, this regime’s record: 42 months of 8.2%+ unemployment; reduced labor force participation rate; median household income down 8.2% – about $4,000 less a year; Food and Gasoline prices sky rocketed – from $1.88 to (I paid) $4.21 last week; more people below the poverty level; millions more on food stamps; etc.

    PhD statistics soar: The numbers of PhD working as janitors and waiters soar by 80% and 85%, respectively.

  • Thank you, Donald. That is surely an eye opener if I ever needed one to confirm my belief that Obama is BAD, BAD NEWS….. for America ……for the World….but worst of all FOR CHRIST’S BRIDE.

  • Thank you so much for this post. “..that we allow them to sin because we love them.”

    Amazing! Maybe all we really need is LOVE?
    Agape Love.
    Selfish love.
    Dostoevski is closing in on 2012 thought. Scary.

  • Read “The Dictator’s Learning Curve” by William Dobson for examples of how modern socialist countries, including Venezuela, have turned into tyrannies.

  • Hugo Chavez can be described as obnoxious and abusive and having done severe damage to Venezuela’s already-dysfunctional political economy. Cleaning up the mess he has made will require talents Venezuela’s elites have never manifested. He has damaged what was once one of Latin America’s most durable (if corrupt and incompetant) constitutional orders. However, the man is not Mussolini. There is ample, vigorous, and organized opposition. The regime is neo-Peronist, not neo-Communist or neo-Fascist. Same deal with Morales, Correa, Ortega, and the rest of Latin America’s rogue populist regimes.

The Delaware Legislature Needs a Good Spanking

Saturday, September 29, AD 2012

By now, most are aware that the State of Delaware has passed a piece of child welfare legislation that, in effect, criminalizes the act of spanking a child.  The language is subtle, but is general enough to be disastrous for a parents’ right to raise and discipline their children.  The key passage in question is actually a definition:

“Physical injury” to a child shall mean any impairment of physical condition or pain.

The synopsis provided by the legislature near the bottom of the bill reads:

This bill establishes the offense of Child Abuse. These new statutes combine current statutes and redefine physical injury and serious physical injury to reflect the medical realities of pain and impairment suffered by children. A new section provides special protection to infants, toddlers and children who have disabilities. The statute also expands the state of mind necessary for certain offenses against children allowing for more effective prosecution of parents who subject their children to abuse by others and fail to protect their children. The bill also re-numbers the definitional section making clear that the definitions apply to all crimes in the subchapter.

What are the implications of beating one’s children?  Well, that depends on their age.  According to the Home School Legal Defense Association:

Under the new law, a parent causing “physical injury” (e.g., pain) to a child under age 18 would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and subject to one year in prison. A parent causing pain to a child who was 3 years of age or younger would be guilty of a class G felony and subject to two years in prison.

Of course many a blogger will be up in arms, and rightfully so, over the passage of this bill.  I will let those who have more of a aptitude for jurisprudence to dismantle the constitutionality of the legislation.  Actually, I would love for someone skilled in this area to address the possibility of “pain” eventually being interpreted in a general enough manner to include psychological pain, something we often deal with in the fight against abortion and clauses to include “the health of the mother.”

For my own part, I have only two things to offer.

First, this language is so ridiculous as to be entirely unenforcible.  Any time I cause my children pain I am guilt of a class A misdemeanor?  Do you have any idea how many times I violate this statue during a sixty-minute Mass?  A pinch here, a squeeze there, and yes, even the occasional smack upside the head.  In the course of a single Mass, under Delaware State Law, I could probably be issued somewhere between three years and three centuries of prison time depending on the weekend and sitting arrangement of my six kids.  And it gets worse for my three-year-old, in which the misdemeanor is elevated to a felony.  Good Lord, I wouldn’t stand a chance!  The weekend when I found the little booger dropping my keys behind the radiator, squeezing an entire bottle of hand sanitizer on his sister’s school work, microwaving his plastic blocks, and standing on the sink so her could see in the mirror … let’s just say that I wouldn’t get out of prison until somewhere between hell freezing over and the day the Browns win a Super Bowl.

Second, I thought the dialog with my nine-year-old daughter was entertaining:

Daughter:  What are you guys taking about?

Dad:  The State of Delaware has passed a law saying that parents can’t spank their kids.

Daughter:  That’s silly.

Dad:  Why?

Daughter:  Parents need to spank so their kids will behave.

Dad:  What do you think will happen if parents can’t spank their kids?

Daughter:  The kids will probably end up voting for Obama.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to The Delaware Legislature Needs a Good Spanking

  • The girl is wise beyond her years. I have no doubt that children who have never been spanked will be more likely to vote Democratic.

  • Look up the Fabian Socialists, HG Wells etc. Didn’t Hillary lead the charge for kids suing their parents?? All for the State raising the kids. Hillary won’t allow the kids to sue the State though.

  • Although I don’t believe that spanking is absolutely MANDATORY to establish good discipline (see: Nanny 911 and Supernanny) – I think that parents should have the right to determine the best way of raising their children…because not all kids will respond to the same style of punishment in the same way. Some kids do actually need a spanking – especially the ones who think they’re indestructible and constantly put themselves in danger…the fastest way to stop a kid from getting himself killed is to cause some pain so that they connect such actions with discomfort and learn to stop doing them. Getting your kids to behave in Mass is especially tricky, I remember being 6 and struggling to stay quiet during a church service…and sometimes you really do need to get their attention quickly and quietly (as the original poster suggests…a quick swat on the hand or pinch on the neck or pull on the ear so that they’ll be looking at you when you tell them to be quiet or face the consequences. 🙂

    It is rather troubling to me how badly we’re coddling our kids these days. it’s to the point where they literally think that having sex is a right that trumps everything else (how else do you explain them demanding that everyone pay for their condoms and pills and hand them out like candy in high school?) – and where they don’t understand why, when they leave college, have they not immediately become a financial success and been handed an awesome job.

  • We live in Pennsylvania but travel to Delaware to see friends often.

    The next time our youngest deserves a spanking in the First State, we’ll have to remember to save it until we pass inder the Welcome To Pennsylvania sign on Rt. 202. I imagine the suspense of the half an hour it takes to get back into the Commonwealth will be far worse than the spanking that would have been administered on the spot.

    Our eldest is eleven and we have an eight and a five year old. Our older two have been spanked perhaps five times for each. Our youngest has earned three.

    Spanking is a tool in our arsenal. It has been used primarily for the 3 to 6 year old period, that time where children are capable of knowing right from wrong but have a hard time connecting punishments with the offense if the punishment doesn’t follow closely on the discovery of the offense.

  • Ever notice that as more and more Americans have fewer and fewer children of their own somehow they get the urge to raise everybody else’s kids? But only by the remote-control means of imposing legislative mandates on their neighbors, no way would those meddlers bother adopting school-age kids or take in teenagers as foster parents.

    I expect the first few cases under this law tried in Delaware will be show trials of some dads. Also, I predict that this law will be shelved when it begins to inconvenience the most common perpetrator of acts of physical punishment of children – mothers. Prosecutors could perp-walk mommies past TV cameras by the dozen simply by staking out daycare centers.

  • Just another brick in the wall to establish that everyone is either an employee of the State (with its SOP manual to be followed to the letter) or a ward of the State.

  • Did you catch that at least 15 of the 23 Republicans in the Delaware legislature cast a ballot for this bill? We are all well represented, no?

  • The Ninth Circuit Court in California told parents that when the child crosses the threshhold of the public school, the parents have no longer have anything to say about their children’s education. Kidnapping by the state.

    Parents have custody of their children and when parents refuse to give “in loco parentis” to the school, everybody better pay attention.
    Parents may attend the classroom as auditors of their delegated power of attorney “in loco parentis” and cannot be prohibited from or prevented from ensuring the well being of their children.

    The state cannot be sued, or so they say, but the state can be held to keep their own laws. Cultural bullies do not own any child.

  • A second thought: If parents have custody, natural and legal, of their children, the state can only dictate how the state must behave towards the minor children of parents who delegate “in loco parentis”, the parents have the final say.

  • Jules Ferry, one of the founders of public education in Europe was more candid than most politicians, when he said its purpose was “to cast the nation’s youth in the same mould and to stamp them, like the coinage, with the image of the republic.”

    One might imagine that he was a left-wing ideologue, but not a bit of it; a leading figure in the Party of Order, he was the minister of Thiers, during “bloody week” (the suppression of the Paris Commune) and the theoretician of colonisation in Algeria. No politician, left or right, believes he can have too much power.

  • Untrue MPS. The Founding Fathers were always concerned with the Government having too much power.

  • No politician, left or right, believes he can have too much power.

    Michael, the people empowered by this are not legislators but social workers and various and sundry in the family court apparat.

  • Art Deco

    But legislators love to direct the lives of the citizens.

    “The intervention of the legislator in all things seemed to Rollin [the French classical scholar] so indispensable that he quite seriously congratulates the Greeks on the fact that a man named Pelasges came to show them how to eat acorns. Before that, he says, they grazed on the land like cattle.”

    That’s the spirit

  • But legislators love to direct the lives of the citizens.

    When you are tempted to make a statement like that, put in the name of an actual living and breathing human being and see if it makes sense. The people employed in the Obama waivers machine may like to direct the lives of others. My local municipal councillors manifest no such ambition. They spend more time than they would like to listening to people’s complaints and fussing over how to finance small sidewalk repairs.

Fanfare for the Common Soldier

Saturday, September 29, AD 2012

Something for the weekend.  Fanfare for the Common Man by Aaron Copland.  Composed seventy years ago, it was Copland’s reaction to the US entering World War II.  Watching the video above, a salute to the soldiers of World War II, brought back memories from 36 years ago for me.

Back in the summer of 1976 I was on vacation between my freshman and sophomore years at the University of Illinois.  My father ran the steel shears at a truck body plant in Paris, Illinois.  They were hiring summer help and I got a job working on the factory floor.  Although I liked the idea of earning money, I was less than enthused by the job.  The factory floor was not air-conditioned, and the summer was hot.  Additionally I had never worked in a factory before, had no experience with heavy machinery and did not know what to expect.

I was placed under the supervision of a regular worker at the plant.  He looked like he was a thousand years old to me at the time, but I realize now that he was younger than than I am now at age 55.  I would assist him at a press in which we would manhandle heavy sheets of steel and use the press to bend them into various shapes.  Before we began he pointed to a little box and said that if I lost a finger or a part of a finger as a result of the press, I should toss it in the box and proceed with the job.  Thus I was introduced to his macabre sense of humor.

I didn’t appreciate it at the time, but he was engaged in a rough and ready form of instruction.  He had to take a completely green kid, and teach me various tasks, all the while keeping up with the jobs the press was assigned.  He did it pretty skillfully, and I learned.  I never got to like the job, but I learned how to do it.  I also learned to grudgingly respect my mentor.  He obviously wasn’t well read, but he was handy with machinery, and under his tutelage I learned how to operate the press without losing one of my digits, or costing him one of his.  He kept me out of trouble at the factory, and included me in his conversations with his fellow veteran workers.  All in all I probably learned more that summer of future value for me in life, than I learned from any of my courses in college.

One day during the half hour we had for lunch, I asked him if he had served in World War II.  I was in Army ROTC at the University, and I had a keen interest in military history.  He told me that he had been an infantryman in the Army and that he had participated in Operation Torch.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Fanfare for the Common Soldier

  • Could we catalogue their memoirs? online or otherwise

  • Many such projects Mary, fortunately, are underway.

  • We can use their inspiration today, 9/29 (Feast of the Guardian Angels) through 10/7( Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary) as a people praying and fasting for help in waging the spiritual war with the Novena for Religious Liberty. Just doing our jobs given at our Baptism.

    religiousliberties.org/novena/

  • Five years in the U.S. Navy Fleet as a boiler technician gave me a better education than any Ph.D. at Harvard could have ever given.

  • Mac,

    Have you read Rick Atkinson’s – An Army at Dawn. It covers the North Africa Campaign?

    Sadly, (mainly for us, We Hope they’re in Heaven) all my WWII vet uncles, and both Korea vets, have gone to their rewards.

    Here’s a sailor’s story. Uncle (machinists mate in a Pacific Navy liberty ship engine room) was kind of wild in his youth. He left to attend his brother’s wedding and was late returning and so missed the Liberty ship sailing. He was punished with an AWOL “Captain’s Mast” (Article 15 for USAF) fined and lost stripes. He finished the war and was honorably discharged. The ship he missed was the USS Mount Hood.

    “The Mount Hood was an ammunition ship that exploded due to unknown causes on November 10, 1944 while anchored in Seeadler Harbour at Manus Island (Admiralty Islands). The explosion killed all 295 men aboard and severely damaged 22 other ships in the harbor. The repair ship U.S.S. Mindanao was alongside Mount Hood when the explosion occurred. 82 of the Mindanao crew also died that day. 371 sailors on other ships in the harbor were injured.”

    “Greet them ever with grateful hearts.”

  • Good thing for the sense of the men from that generation.
    Our ‘PC’ men better see the results of the Community Organizer in Chief who never was PC. Confusion reigns from ‘education’ without deference.
    Saw this following in Gateway Pundit.

    Member of “Obama Boyz” Gang Arrested in Drive-By Shooting

    Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, September 28, 2012, 10:12 PM

    A member of the “Obama Boyz” gang was arrested today and charged with two shootings in north St. Louis.
    The Post-Dispatch reported:

    A St. Louis teen who authorities say is a member of a gang called the “Obama Boyz” has been charged with two shootings on Saturday.

    Anthony Jamal Lee, 18, fired at a group of people from the window of a Grand Prix at 2:17 p.m., according to charges. A 13-year-old boy was struck in the side of his body and had to be hospitalized; a 17-year-old boy was grazed by bullets on his face and arm.

    Lee, according to authorities, then fired from his car at two passengers in another Grand Prix, grazing one of them in the back.

    One shooting occurred at the 3200 block of Oriole Avenue, and the other nearby at Harney and Beacon avenues.

    Lee, who was charged Friday in St. Louis Circuit Court, faces a mix of 10 felony counts of first-degree assault, armed criminal action and firing shots from a vehicle. Judge Theresa Burke set $100,000 cash bail.

  • “Have you read Rick Atkinson’s – An Army at Dawn. It covers the North Africa Campaign?”

    I started it but I never completed it. So many books, so little time!

  • The youngest of 11, my father fought in Italy until they surrendered, was shipped to Germany where the Nazi’s surrendered the day after he arrived. Supposedly, he had orders to the Pacific when Japan threw in the towel. His sisters always told us, his kids, that the the Axis powers were terrified of him, so they gave up! The only survivor of the 11, he will be 95 on Tuesday, October 2nd.
    His eldest son served in Vietnam as a forward observer for a year and came home unscathed.
    His 2nd and youngest son, me, failed to get into advanced ROTC, due to a heart defect, but was healthy enough to be drafted in the last call-up prior to the lottery. The army spent 10 months trying to get approval to make me an officer, and when when that didn’t come to pass they sent me to NATO. Wonder if anyone remembers “The Fairy Godmother Dept., Dept. of the Army” from Heinlein’s “Glory Road”. She took excellent care of me.
    None of my father’s 10 grandchildren have been in the military (Deo Gratias). His great grandchildren are still to young or predict.

  • When I was newly married, and still in college I worked in a couple of assisted living facilities around 1992-94. There were a lot of residents who had been in the Great Depression, and a few at that time who were WW2 veterans. I met a guy who had been a nurse in the British Navy, and on the beach at D-Day to provide medical care. He said it was pointless, there was little they could do under the conditions, and they were mainly there for morale. He later took part in action against the Graf Spee. I met a kind and friendly Alheimer’s patient who could not remember his own name, or anything much else really, but he could remember being wounded and in a field hospital that ended up being attacked by either a plane or by artillery by the Japanese, and he would always say “I don’t know why they did that.” I met a three war veteran who had gone from being a bomber pilot in WW2 to fixing technical problems with weapons systems in the field in Vietnam, retiring as a colonel. I met a veteran who had fought in the jungle in Burma. He had Parkinson’s disease, and this can cause visual hallucinations. He would hallucinate dead Asian women, and this disturbed him greatly. I met other veterans in other work I did later. I think that all of them had been profoundly affected by their experience of war, but resolved to move on with life.

  • Truly the greatest generation of men & women.
    God bless every one of our Vets.

  • My wife and I had the honor to escort 35 WWII vets and their guest to D.C. three years ago. We had a charter and stopped off at Flight 93 site in route. The five days were full of emotion, gratitude and respect. Stories were shared, and hearts continued to receive healing from deep wounds of long ago.
    Mary and I agree….It was a blessing.
    Thank You All….our Veterans.

A Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

Friday, September 28, AD 2012

Jimmy Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell calls out the Mainstream Media covering up the Obama administration’s lies on Libya as a fundamental threat to American Democracy:

PAT CADDELL: Thank you.  Glad to be with you.  This could take a long time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this.  I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.  That changed in 1980.  There’s a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of  “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.  But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous.  We have a First Amendment for one reason.  We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.  We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%.  So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.  I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to A Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

  • Wow! I have no other words. The new media is a threat to the very Democracy they say that they support. And that’s the problem. This is NOT a Democracy. It is – or is supposed to be – a Constitutional Republic where the individual right to life and liberty are sacrosanct and inviolable, whether by a simple majority or by dictate of political leaders.

  • I guess I’m too nice a guy to say those things about Romney although I did give a sanitized version of it in another thread But I don’t think he’s doing as bad as McCain who practically told people to vote for the other guy. Romney is merely saying it’s understandable why people would make the mistake of voting for the other guy because he deserves our complete sympathy.

    As for the press I agree with Caddell’s alarm only because the strength of the government today vis a vis earlier times to enforce its will in micromanaging everything. Periodically there has been a rabid partisan press as in Jefferson’s day or in the 1930s where most of the papers were anti FDR (rightly or wrongly). What’s different now is that the Repubs and Romney are so comfortable with being the butt of all the attacks and not hiring their own press to communicate through. After all they are more ashamed of talk radio than they are embracing it (and they hate the Repubs who fight back or even speak up). The Repubs Stockholm Syndrome, which started at the Congressional level in the 1960s and at the Presidential level perhaps with Daddy Bush seems unshakeable now. The Repub convention except for Eastwood was a perfect demonstration of it. Gingrich and Reagan seem to be the aberrations not the standard bearers. If they lose under these circumstances it may well prove fatal.

  • But I don’t think he’s doing as bad as McCain who practically told people to vote for the other guy.

    Can you give an example?

  • Yeah look up what he said to the NAACP.

  • The bias has grown much worse this election cycle so I don’t watch most of it. I just wish they would actually report the news from both sides but what we see now is the constant attack on Romney & Obama always gets a pass.

  • The threat to our way of life isn’t solely from the lying, liberal media, it’s also raging in unionized, public education and clueless academia.

    The election will tell us more about the soul of America than about Obama or Romney.

Now This is Bare Knuckles

Friday, September 28, AD 2012

Hey Mitt, perhaps your ad men might want to take a look at the ads put out by my personal hero Allen West.  One of two black Republican Congressmen, he was redistricted into a much less Republican district and was thought to be easy pickings for his Democrat opponent.  Instead, West is clobbering Patrick Murphy, and is now leading by eleven points.  How did he do it?  Because he knows what he believes in and he fights for his beliefs.  Conviction and honest emotion go a long way in politics, along with a verbal hard right to the kidneys every now and then:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Now This is Bare Knuckles

  • I love Allen West.

    But I despise and loathe Barack Hussein Obama.

    Yet I am called racist by liberal acquaintances.

    Maybe they are correct since I am biased in favor of the human race made of men, women and babies.

  • If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
    2 Chronicles 7:14

  • “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.”
    Matthew 10:32

  • “NO” to God, our Creator and the endower of our unalienable rights is “NO” to freedom, “NO” to our U.S. Constitution and “NO” to our First Amendment freedoms, “NO” to all ualienable rights. The Democrats have lost all control of their party. What can the democratic Party offer besides chaos. Let the democratic party go home and clean its own house before it tries to run our nation.

Solidarity Health Share: Discussion Starter

Friday, September 28, AD 2012

Yesterday The Motley Monk wrote and excellent article informing us about the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s (NCBC) advice, “Dropping All Insurance Coverage…” Speaking as a concerned Catholic, mother and citizen, I would love to see a lot more discussions like this about our options. Catholics have an opportunity, possibly, to lead the way in our nation.

Some commenters suggested an “offer and ignore” approach, and I’ve noticed some other Catholics talking about that approach as well, though only in early stages. More on that toward the end. It’s something dear hubby and I have discussed extensively in the kitchen. Our motivation? We have a large, young family, and since he’s made his career in the insurance business, he’s aware of better possible options. Admittedly, it’s the auto insurance business, but the fundamental purpose of insurance is still the same. A conscientious insurance businessman seeks to:

1) Offer a product that truly adds value to the customer’s life.

2) Build a business that employs people oriented around that principle too.

As a quick aside, the people who see insurance as some big, greedy, capitalist monster have to base that premise (in this country anyway) on the assumption that customers are unable to chose wisely when it comes to the planning of their family’s future. The Trasancos family, obviously, rejects that premise. We don’t need the government to tell us what is good for us. Thank you, but no thanks, Obama et al.

As another quicker aside, it is common knowledge in the insurance industry that the more government regulation there is in any state, the more costs increase in a general linear fashion. Some regulation is necessary. Too much regulation only employs government workers and adds cost to customers. If oppressive regulation is enforced at the federal level, the government is basically ruling us and treating us like idiots.

Consider this question. Feedback or input, including correction, is welcome. It’s a good conversation to have.

How much do you already pay for health insurance? If you get health insurance through your employer (the situation for many Americans), you most likely pay more than you realize for it. Why? Most employee benefit plans pay 75-80% of the cost of coverage, and the employee pays the rest.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Solidarity Health Share: Discussion Starter

  • 2) Cost-sharing co-ops at a local level. The Knights of Columbus were started by Father McGivney to assist in just such a situation: to help the strugling families with healthcare. The Knights of Columbus predate Obamacare by a century and thus are grandfathered into the culture and administration. If Obamacare tries to force citizens out of their innate civil liberties, especially the Knights of Columbus, Obama will fall.

  • I have something of a one-note response to this. I’ve said the same thing on multiple threads. There shouldn’t be insurance for anything other than catastrophic events. Risk pooling only makes sense if the chances of something are low and the costs of it would be high. I’m sure your husband doesn’t offer oil change insurance. It’d cost $80 per year, and everyone who bought it would spend $80 dollars on it instead of $80 on oil changes. That’s not insurance. There’s no benefit to it. Likewise, we shouldn’t have insurance pay for annual checkups or even the occasional broken arm.

  • Thanks Mary. I didn’t think about the Knights of Columbus!

    Pinky, Great point. Adding a layer of complexity to getting oil changes would even make the price go up, because not only would you have to pay $80 per year for the same service, you’d also have to pay for the insurance company that takes, manages and redistributes the $80 back to you.

    Auto insurance companies can’t get away with that because people know that they can get the oil changed themselves.

    Think how much a Motrin tablet costs on the itemized bill for a hospital stay. When one of our babies were born, I tried to use my own vitamins from home. Nope! Had to have the pills from the hospital for some crazy price to our insurance company.

  • Stacy: Great post. Perhaps Chris Faddis cold run the Major Medical as Pinky suggests. It is more than necessary, it is an absolute.

    Should Sebelius decide to write into Obamacare that the bishops will go to Federal prison for two or three years for violating the HHS Mandate, there is nothing to stop it. The Supreme Court has already told us that we are on our own. Biden has already expressed people in chains. Obamacare is not a healthcare policy, Obamacare is a dictatorship.

  • “The Knights of Columbus were started by Father McGivney to assist in just such a situation: to help the struggling families with healthcare.”

    Prior to about 1920, health insurance as we know it today didn’t really exist. What people bought in the 19th century when the K of C was founded was not designed to pay doctor or hospital bills — those were not terribly expensive since medical care was pretty crude compared to today — but to replace income lost to the family from the breadwinner not being able to work. It was more properly called disability insurance.

  • I work for a health insurance company. I have worked for my present employer for over 17 years. I worked for my previous employer, another health insurance company, for over five years.

    I could go on and on and on about the problems with health care in general and the health insurance industry in detail, but I am not going to bore everyone with that now.

    Obamacare is designed to run us out of business. Their allies in the media are gleeful accomplices. Remember the anti-HMO media spin in the mid 1990s? There were weekly “horror stories” on 60 Minutes and other TV newsmagazines. My dad was covered by an HMO. He had congestive heart failure and a terrible case of emphysema. By the time he went to a doctor his lungs were nearly gone. His HMO covered just about everything, including a transplant (he was too far gone to get one).

    My own insurance used to be great, when I was single and did not need it. After my wife’s two pregnancies and two miscarriages my own health insurance seemed to shove off on me as much as it covered.

    I turn 49 today. I am not happy. I am scared. I have had a job through this recession, but like most people, my money pays for less and less. Deductibles and copayments have increased as well as what gets deducted from my paycheck, and my employer could be out of business in a decade or less if this obamacare garbage stands.

  • Pingback: SUNDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Dr John Oertle is Chris’ business partner, and was just presenting SHS at the Catholic Medical Association meeting. You can find him here:

    http://www.naturalfamily.co/

Libyan Lie

Friday, September 28, AD 2012

From day one the Obama administration knew that the Libyan attack on our Benghazi consulate and the murder of our ambassador was an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the Mohammed video.

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

 

In spite of that, President Obama and members of his administration for days afterwards pretended that the attack was in reaction to the video.  Go here to read a first-rate time line put together by the Washington Post blog.  Why the lie?  Several reasons.

1.  Osama dead and General Motors alive- One of the few foreign policies successes of the Obama administration was the killing of bin Laden.  A successful  al-Qaeda attack on the anniversary of 9-11 undercut this in a huge way.

2.  Now we have to do something?- In the midst of the Presidential campaign the last thing Obama wanted was to admit that this was a terrorist attack.  Such an admission would require that he take action.  In fact Obama has done precious little in the aftermath attack.  More than two weeks after the attack, the FBI still has not examined the attack site at Benghazi.

3.  AppeasementThe Mohammed video bogeyman allowed Obama to do what his preferred policy is to the jihadists:  pretend that if we bend over backwards not to offend Muslims, everything will be sweetness and love between Islam and the West.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Libyan Lie

  • “It ain’t lying if it advances the agenda.” Yogi Bubba

  • Donald,
    This search for the total evil of Obama is going to give you a heart attack…and I mean that literally. It’s already got T. Shaw changing the spelling of his last name. Let’s take Hitler. He was evil but he was not guilty therefore of every sin one could imagine. It was possible for Christians to sinfully slander Hitler by accusing him of sins outside his actual sins. An evil man is not a free target wherein slander no longer applies. Appease jihadists? Obama’s family is permanently in danger from Al Qaeda for the Bin Laden go ahead. I believe Al Qaeda will eventually strike them even decades from now. Obama either gets credit for all the Al Qaeda his people have killed or none of your favorite presidents get credit for anything they did.

  • “One of the few foreign policies successes of the Obama administration was the killing of bin Laden.”

    I’d say that’s credit.

    You are correct in saying that attributing sin/guilt falsely regardless of the evil extent of the individual so attributed is wrong. Bearing false witness is a sin, period, and about whom that witness is given has no impact on the sin itself, although it will certainly play a part in any atonement or penance.

    But the opposite is also true: it is equally wrong to excuse evils/sins by dint of an outstanding good. Hitler and the Nazis gave the world a number of excellent and still very useful technical advancements (VW Bug, anyone?) but that does not excuse him or them from the atrocities of the Holocaust or the guilt of starting the most costly war the world has ever known.

    So, Don did give credit where it was due, but that does not mean he has to give a pass to everything else about this administration that has gone so woefully, dangerously wrong.

  • Rubbish Bill from beginning to end. My heart is in excellent condition as attested to by my Doctor earlier in the week. I have never claimed that Obama is the embodiment of evil, but rather a fairly typical hack politician from Chicago. As to Obama and the topic of this post, there is no charitable explanation of what he did in the wake of the Benghazi attack, none. The attacks on al-Qaeda by Obama have been for purely domestic political considerations and because al-Qaeda can no more be made peace with than a treaty can be established with a pack of rabid dogs. His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009 illustrates his true policy, and contains such gems as these:

    “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

    I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

    Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

    As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    Obama has rose colored glasses for Islam and dark colored glasses for the US. I pity those unable, or unwilling, to grasp this truth.

  • Readers who want more than the Bin Laden kill…go here…

    http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=14638964

  • Libyan Lie sounds like a good song title.

  • Well, duh. ABC news. Silly us.

  • “MSM’s so-called journalists do not report and will not so much as ask or investigate anything that does not advance the big liberal lie).

    Faked but accurate. For the liars truth, facts, realities, and history do not exist. They are putty in their hands. They use them to make a point, to do good as they see it. And whatever they need to twist or omit is justified by their purity of intentions – and they always have the purest of intentions – Exterminate the unborn! Sanctify sodomy! Sexual exploitation of young women! False but justified.

    Hate-filled liars despise facts and truth. They rely on hysterics, insults, lies and weeping and gnashing of teeth to advance their horrid ideas and destructive policies. The state-run MSM and PBR/S also eschew facts and truth, which are not susceptible to their calumnies, distortions, distractions, exaggerations, omissions, and outright lies.

  • Readers can check the interview here of Ali Soufan. one of few FBI who spoke Arabic back in the day of 2001 and who actually interrogated terrorists and received the FBI directors award for Excellence in Investigative work. He broke with CIA people on the need for waterboarding and was on O’Reilly refuting a CIA person with whom he disagreed on effectiveness of rapport versus torture. He praises Obama for the kills but also for broadening international contacts in the war on terrorism…hopes that a Romney group would not reverse the latter and gives Obama an A minus with criticsms near the end of the interview:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/11/former-fbi-agent-ali-soufan-on-bin-laden-s-death-war-on-terror.html

  • Except CIA official Jose Rodriquez denies that Soufan was actually effective. In fact he points out how terrorists mocked him.

  • If Soufan were impartial, he’d rate Obama F-minus for intelligence: both military and IQ. E.G., the well-planned, organized/inside job diplomatic murders in Libya:

    Obama propaganda 24/7 said the Osama slaying was a huge victory: spucatum tauri.

    So what if Ali Soufan is/was against water-boarding (it’s one trick pony time again):

    I think Instapundit: “A thoroughly documented new report on the impact of US drone campaign was released by NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. Entitled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan”, the report details the terrorizing effects of US drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from US officials about that campaign. The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians”.

    And there is this:

    “…American progressives cheered loudly when a similar question was posed by Al Gore in a widely celebrated 2006 speech he gave on the Washington mall denouncing the Bush/Cheney assault on civil liberties:

    “‘If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?’

    “What has always amazed me about that is that, there, Gore was merely decrying Bush’s mere eavesdropping on Americans and his detention of them without judicial review. Yet here Obama is claiming the power to decide who should be killed without a shred of transparency, oversight, or due process – a power that is being continuously used to kill civilians, including children – and many of these same progressives now actually cheer for that.”

    Lesseee: Ali Soufan – Muslim?

    Dulce Islami inexpertis.

  • Ironic Bill that the interview of the very self serving Ali Soufan, who has been doing his best to stay in the public eye since he went public in 2009, was published on September 11, 2012, the date of the Benghazi attack and contains this nugget:

    “For the first time you have Muslim countries, European countries working together hand in hand,” Soufan explains. “It was clearly outlined in Obama’s speech in Cairo, [which] in the Middle East was viewed as ‘the time of unilateral action is not going to be there anymore.’ What he decided to focus on upon creating these partnerships to counter violent extremism, talked about human security, economic development, education, literacy, women’s rights, a lot of these issues.””

    Yeah, as Cairo and Benghazi demonstrated that day Obama has done a bang up job in getting Muslim countries on our side.

  • Bill,

    “Yogi Bubba” was a play on Yogi Berra (“It aint bragging if it’s true.”).

    You’re correct. I could not possibly have more disrespect for the racist autocrat currently slumming in the White House.

  • It is very hard to Trust Obama, his administration.
    The double speak flows….well like bung-lava!
    “We will draft a sensible conscience clause…”, “the Savings from not being in Afganistain…”, I’m upset.
    Trust is important, and my trust in his words and actions are low. His “trust account is empty” and I agree with Don’s 5 points.

  • Donald,
    I don’t think “countries” that are newly forming have perfect riot prevention techniques or terrorist preventions techniques…since even the US has had its riots and terrorist incidents.
    Here’s Judge Napolitano of Fox interviewing Soufan and at the end calling his book “great”. O’Reilly also interviewed him on Fox and that interview was respectful too. This Fox…Fox…not the NY Times..

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1160137357001/eyewitness-to-the-war-on-terror/

  • Baloney Bill. The so-called Libyan government can’t even protect our FBI agents to go to the attack scene in Benghazi two weeks after the attack.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/28/fbi-probe-in-benghazi-as-close-as-400-miles-away/

    As for Cairo, if you don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood government was involved in the riots at our embassy I have some swamp land down in Florida to sell you. Then we have Pakistan, that grand American ally, holding a public holiday for violent protests over the Mohammed film, while the Transport Minister of Pakistan places a bounty for the murder of the maker of the Mohammed film.

    Napolitano is an isolationist and paleocon who believes that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. I view his opinion in the same awe as I would that of a bag lady screeching obscenities on the street. As for O’Reilly, not one of the great intellects of our day, he interviewed both Soufan and Jose Rodriquez and appeared to give greater credence to Rodriquez for what little that is worth.

  • Sounds awfully like the darling of conservatives, Leo Strauss.

  • The truth actually MPS is that almost all conservatives in America have never heard of Leo Stauss, let alone hailed him as their darling.

  • Sounds awfully like the darling of conservatives, Leo Strauss.

    I am not sure what you meant by this, but Leo Strauss in this country is a bogey in a deeply stupid discourse. This man, now nearly 40 years deceased, was a philosophy professor with almost no involvement in political discussion at any level. There were a couple of subcabinet officers in the Bush Administration who had taken a couple of courses from him during their undergraduate years and a widely admired critic of higher education (Allan Bloom) was a student and disciple of Strauss. That is the extent of the conduit of his ideas to contemporary Republican politics. It has not prevented the addle-pated in the palaeo nexus from positing some high level cabal of initiates manipulating public policy (with William Kristol as the exalted cyclops). Unless you are pleased to be mistaken for a latter-day manifestation of the tendencies that gave you the John Birch Society, I would suggest you not bring up the name Leo Strauss.

  • By denying Strauss’s influence Art and Don are demonstrating their complete allegiance to Strauss, because as we all know true Straussians are the ones most adamant in denying his influence. The fact that few outside of higher educational circles even claim to know who the man is therefore a sure-fire sign that the man’s philosophy completely permeates modern society.

    (That was sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired.)

  • “The so-called Libyan government can’t even protect our FBI agents to go to the attack scene in Benghazi two weeks after the attack.”

    Then how is CNN wandering around Bengazi picking up the odd diary left behind by the movers? The Admin has no intention of investigating this or any other inconvenient terror attack. They are in the process of accelerating the release of terrorists from Gitmo. They are going to keep the FBI in Tripoli until 2013 or 2017 depending.

    As I said somewhere else, there is also the issue that the Libyan government is permeated with Al Qaeda types as well as Brotherhood types.

  • Philosophy prof? Clueless clowns making up stuff about stuff.

    Last Phil class I attended was a final x in May 1970. The clueless clown asked me “Are you in the right place?” I was and I wasn.’t. I passed the useless required course and got my three vacuous credits.

    Bottom line Obama and stooges are 24/7 lying.

  • I was being flippant.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki: Democrat Party and Intrinsic Evil

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Springfield, Illinois diocese minces no words as to what is at stake in this election:

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.

Continue reading...

81 Responses to Bishop Thomas John Paprocki: Democrat Party and Intrinsic Evil

  • Listening to Bp. Paprocki say the bishops “lack the humility to speak on matters outside [their] competence” made me cheer and brought a tear of joy to my eye at the same time. He is defintely a minority amongst his brethren in the USCCB.

  • I forgot to add that he said that at the USCCB general meeting a few months ago.

  • May he be the first of many – not the last of the few.

  • It is SO refreshing to hear the truth! God bless you Bishop Paprocki! I would only ask you to continue to use your First Amendment Rights of freedom of speech and announce as a private citizen who you are voting for at the federal and state levels that will have a voice on the issues you mentioned.

    I would also ask you to send a copy of your statement to all of your brother bishops and ask them to join you.

  • Yet, I know Catholics who will still vote for Obama. They’re liberals who in their arrogance really believe they are smarter and morally superior to us “conservatives.” They tell me they see the “big picture” and “what’s best for the common good.” How they’re able to look pass child murder and sodomy always amazes me. I’m praying that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes and turn their hearts – for their sake and for the sake of our country.

  • Yes sir, that’s my bishop. My favorite lines: “In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be ‘safe, legal, and rare.’ That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently, ‘rare’ is so last century that it had to be dropped”.

    “I would only ask you to continue to use your First Amendment Rights of freedom of speech and announce as a private citizen who you are voting for at the federal and state levels”

    Not sure I agree with that. Balloting is secret for a reason and I don’t think we should set a precedent of expecting or demanding that ANY citizen, including bishops, state whom they are going to vote for. Besides, I think the answer to the question of whom the Bishop is NOT going to vote for is pretty obvious. Beyond that, several morally acceptable alternatives are available (vote GOP, vote third party/write in, or don’t vote at all).

  • Well, actually Don the Kiwi, he seems more like the last of the few. Many prominent individual bishops like Cdl Dolan and Abp Chaput as well as USCCB as a whole, spend way too much time using their good offices carrying on about matters outside their competence. They spend way too much time making statements opposing capital punishment and defending illegal immigrstion. These statements are not only ill informed, but I believe they go to the lengths of being dishonest. Cdl. Dolan equated the state of AZ’s legitimate effort to deal with its illegal imigrtion problem (SB 1070) with the Klu Klux Klan. I do not see how that is not an act of libel. For a Catholic bishop, especially one of Dolan’s prominence to engage in such in act is a scandal. But yu can judge for yourself:

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=36322

    So, hearing Bp Paprocki tell his brother bishops at a USCCB to basically shut up on matters outside their competence was an understatement, but a breath of fresh air nonetheless.

    With few exceptions, the Church Militant in the U.S. is sorely lacking in adequate generals to lead in the war we are up against. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional in mmy opinion.

  • @Elaine Krewer

    “Not sure I agree with that. Balloting is secret for a reason and I don’t think we should set a precedent of expecting or demanding that ANY citizen, including bishops, state whom they are going to vote for. Besides, I think the answer to the question of whom the Bishop is NOT going to vote for is pretty obvious. Beyond that, several morally acceptable alternatives are available (vote GOP, vote third party/write in, or don’t vote at all).”

    Yes, “balloting” is secret if one wants it to be. But many prominent people publically tell people who they are supporting. This election is unlike any we have ever had. The Church, itself, has a stake in it that they can’t just rely on the Supreme Court to protect them; they have to protect themselves. “A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush,” and they have a bird in hand with this election. There is no way this man should be reelected president BUT he has lots of money behind him (I wonder why) and a lying news media and a fawning entertainment industry who will do all they can to protect and boost him up while trying to destroy his opponent. The Church has an army of people, but over half of them remain in and vote for the Decadent Party. Why? Because the bishops have failed in helping them to learn how to develop a properly formed conscience with their confusing booklet, “Faithful Citizenship.” This “instruction” booklet, created to supposedly enable a Catholic to discern how to develop a properly form conscience was intentionally written, I suspect, to enable a Catholic to “feel” correct in voting for who ever they want to. That is why after so many years of babies being murdered, and so many years of “Faithful Citizenship,” so many Catholics still give their name identification and votes to the pro-abortion, Decadent Party, and that includes a majority of the registered-to-vote clergy, and bishops, too.

    So, here we are, at a cross road. Catholics are the largest, single voting block for the Decadent Party. The bishops realize it; they enabled that to continue with “Faithful Citizenship” and have never really done anything to change it after seeing how Catholics continued voting. Do the bishops want to see the Supreme Court stacked with more pro-abortion justices? Do the bishops want to see more abortions paid for with taxpayer dollars? Do the bishops want to see theirs and their flocks’ freedom of religion continued to be destroyed? Do the bishops want to close down Catholic schools and hospitals? Do the bishops want to see marriage destroyed? Which party do the bishops what to see in power when Archbishop Weakland’s autobiography comes out in a month or two telling about his homosexual lifestyle as priest and bishop? Which party do they trust to treat the Church right, the Decadent Party or the Decent Party? Do they really want Catholics to vote for a third party or do a write in? No, it is time the bishops step up and lead by example. This is a spiritual war, not just an election. And God placed them in a leadership position to lead the troops into battle. It’s time to lead by example and tell us who THEY are voting for. That way Catholics will KNOW what the end result is of having a properly formed conscience.

  • Romans 1:28-30

    “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.”

    in 2012, “they” are concentrated among democrats.

  • If churches want to get political, they must be taxed like any other business.

  • First rate idea John. Right after the Federal and State governments begin paying Churches for the charitable work they do, the hospitals they provide and the schools they run. Every government budget in this country would collapse if governments had to pick up the slack caused by Churches ceasing to engage in charity.

  • The Church is made of people, and these people pay taxes. Even the priests and bishops surely pay income taxes the same as any other person who receives an income. So why should the Church (i.e., the people who make up the Church) have to pay taxes twice for their freedom of speech? Just because the liberal elite doesn’t like the truth in the message?

    PS, there are no taxes in either Heaven or Hell, and we all end up in one of those two places, Purgatory being a pit stop on the way for those bound for Heaven.

  • BTW, isn’t Planned Parenthood tax exempt? What about all the Eco-wacko enviro-nazi groups? They are politically active. If the Church is to be taxed, then why not them? Liberals never can their proposals to their logical conclusions.

  • @John

    “If churches want to get political, they must be taxed like any other business.”

    What is “political” about what the churches are talking about?

  • @John,

    Yes! We’ll start with the black racists that call themselves “the Reverend . . . ”

    And, move on to ACORN, every taxpayer-funded community group, etc.

  • My beloved American Catholics, this is the time to Vote for your Final Eternal Destination. The Catholic Church Divine Teachings of God’sTruth has already convicted anyone who will vote for Obama and his “Merchants’ of Death” Gospel. From far off here, we hope the Novena you have commenced to-day – the 29th of September, will influence you all to make the ONLY RIGHT DECISION.

  • God bless Bishop Paprocki. May the remainder of the American bishops follow his lead.We pray that God will give all of us courage in these difficult days.

  • [email protected] and all, there was a sermon on EWTN (repeats three times today) by the Bishop of Lincoln describing the spiritual essence of what is happening and how our prayer can help. I can’t do justice to his words about the power of the seven Archangels and the rest of them in helping us with those taken by the fallen angels; he said we pray for the souls of people controlled by the demons who tempt and destroy good.

    Novena from 9/29 (Feast of the Guardian Angels) to 10/7 (Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary) is for all to do in these days of the struggle.

    religiousliberties.org/novena/ has the prayer (s).

  • Parocki, should look a little closer at the alternative before he makes his proclamations. I know of few Catholics that can stomach the policies of selfishness, uncaring the the poor, seniors, & less educated by the alternative – they will all be voting the other way. shame shame Parocki

  • Too many Catholics LPM are precisely of your mindset. It apparently never enters into your, or their, calculations that the ruinous economic policies of Obama will ultimately lead to the slashing of the government handouts that seem to be the be-all and end-all for casting ballots. Beyond that, you care not a fig for abortion, gay marriage, the HHS mandate or a host of other issues where the current regime is directly opposed to the Catholic Church. You are selling out the Church for the Welfare State, and you will not even have the Welfare State much longer.

  • Donald, I’m afraid we are at very opposite poles on this issue.

    The Pope himself said national healthcare is a right.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/19/pope-is-no-tea-partier-benedict-backs-guaranteed-health-care-fo/

    Gay marriage is what my neighbor does and does not infringe upon me. The fact that my neighbor can’t be with their partner in a hospital does seem like quite the travesty though.

    On HHS – why are we suddenly upset about coverage of contraceptives by Protestant employees at our facilities when they were covered before? (we know none of the Catholics are using them … right?). Perhaps we can require them to eat fish on Fridays or attend church on Holy Days of Obligation too.

    Don’t make a deal with the devil on a single issue. Change the single issue. Saving a party of selfish people is a herculean task.

    I could go on.

    You should list all of the ruinous Obama policies and lets go through them.

  • @LPM –

    “Parocki, should look a little closer at the alternative before he makes his proclamations. I know of few Catholics that can stomach the policies of selfishness, uncaring the the poor, seniors, & less educated by the alternative…”

    You must have misunderstood him. He WAS talking about the decadent Democrat Party, the party that loves intrinsic evil and doesn’t want to hear about God or the capitol of Israel in their party platform.

  • LPM, you are right: “Saving a party of selfish people is a herculean task.”

    The more we try, the worst the Decadent, Democrat Party gets.

  • Liberal progressive Democrats, placing Government as God and blasphemously making Obama their Christ, obviously do not think that conservative orthodox Christians possess any reading or critical thinking skills.

    The link that LPM gave goes to the Huffington Post, indeed a part of the Magisterium of satan’s church of liberal progressivism. However, the article fortunately includes a link to the Zenit article which records the Pope’s actual speech. That speech is here:

    http://www.zenit.org/article-31001?l=english

    Now the Pope said, “It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health is rendered effective, favoring access to primary health care.”

    Contrary to LPM’s assertion, the Pope did not say, “It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health care is rendered effective…”

    Nor did the Pope say, “Government must provide cost-free health care.” BTW, in John Chapter 12, when Jesus feet were being bathes with costly oil, Judas iscariot said that the oil could have been sold and the proceeds gone to feed the poor. Scripture says he did not state this because he cared for the poor, but because he carried the money purse and used to steal therefrom. So everytime I read of advocacy of social justice with my tax dollars being made by people like LPM, I think of Judas Iscariot.

    Now what LPM ignores is what the Pope did say towards the end of his speech, “Unfortunately, next to positive and encouraging results, there are opinions and lines of thought that wound it: I am referring to questions such as those connected with so-called ‘reproductive health,’ with recourse to artificial techniques of procreation entailing the destruction of embryos, or with legalized euthanasia. Love of justice, the protection of life from conception to its natural end, respect for the dignity of every human being, are to be upheld and witnessed, even against the current: the fundamental ethical values are the common patrimony of universal morality and the basis of democratic coexistence.”

    Additionally, if LPM is going to insist that we comply with the Pope’s words on health care by virtue of his office as supreme Pontiff, the Episcopus Primus Iter Pares, then equally so ought we to comply with the Pope’s words on the threat to liberty that the current culture of radical secularism (which sacramentalizes the infanticide of the unborn and the filth of homosexuality) presents. That speech is here:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120119_bishops-usa_en.html

    I shall be unequivocal:

    Death to Democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!
    Defeat abortion and homosexual perversion!
    Long Live Liberty!
    Viva Cristo Rey!

  • “The Pope himself said national healthcare is a right.”

    You can look long and hard and you will never find any endorsement of ObamaCare by the Pope.

    “Gay marriage is what my neighbor does and does not infringe upon me. The fact that my neighbor can’t be with their partner in a hospital does seem like quite the travesty though. ”

    Changing the definition of marriage has no impact on you? Ridiculous. As for the hospital canard that is solved by a simple legal document called a power of attorney.

    “On HHS – why are we suddenly upset about coverage of contraceptives by Protestant employees at our facilities when they were covered before?”

    Because the government is mandating the coverage with no option for the employer to opt out. Does freedom of conscience mean nothing to you?

    “Don’t make a deal with the devil on a single issue.”

    Actually that is what you have done. “Take care of me Nanny State! Wah!” You sell out your Catholic birthright for a fool’s gold guarantee of being cared for by the State.

    If you are really interested in what the Pope says, go here to read his warning as to how religious freedom is under threat in America:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/20/pope-benedict-religious-freedom-under-threat-in-america/

  • “Death to Democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!”

    No Paul, Democracy is a grand thing. Our problem is not Democracy but the attacks on it.

  • Donald,

    I should make a difference between (1) Democracy being simply majority rules regardless of the right of the individual to life and liberty and (2) Democracy being a Constitutional Republic where the right of the individual to life and liberty is sacrosanct. The former resulted in the Athenian crowd voting that Socrates should die and the mob in the courtyard of Pontius Pilate crying, “Crucifige eum, crucifge eum!” The latter is what our nation once was and now is not. I am sorry that my comment does not include or address this distinction.

  • @donald:

    “In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press. He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an “inalienable right,” regardless of social and economic status or ability to pay. He cautioned that the privatization of health care should “not become a threat to the accessibility, availability, and quality of health care.””

    http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/social-justice/2011/01/papal-prescription

    You: “Changing the definition of marriage has no impact on you? Ridiculous. ”

    why? It doesn’t impact me, is there something special about you that you are impacted? It doesn’t impact a Catholic marriage, it’s a state definition.

    You: “Because the government is mandating the coverage with no option for the employer to opt out. Does freedom of conscience mean nothing to you?”

    Mark 12:17 “Well, then,” Jesus said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” His reply completely amazed them.

    you: “Actually that is what you have done. “Take care of me Nanny State! Wah!” You sell out your Catholic birthright for a fool’s gold guarantee of being cared for by the State.”

    What is the Catholic position on the death penalty? I think it’s clear

    What is the Catholic position on helping the poor? I think it’s clear

    What is the Catholic position on taking care of children? I think it’s clear

    What is ….

    I could go on

  • “In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press.”

    Once again that is not an endorsement of ObamaCare as the opposition of the Bishops in this country indicate. I note that you did not address the concern of the Pope that I linked to about the assault on religious freedom by the Obama administration.

    “why? It doesn’t impact me”

    Don’t be deliberately obtuse. Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our civilization. Homosexual marriage extends to a sexual perversion the same honored status of marriage to the union between man and woman blessed by Christ at Cana. That you can’t see how this impacts you is an indication of how unimportant the Faith is to you. The whole drive for homosexual marriage is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that homosexual sex is always evil. It has nothing to do with marriage per se, but rather is another way that homosexual activists seek to compel people to act as if homosexuality is normal and good.

    “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,”

    Our consciences do not belong to Caesar and neither does our Church.

    “What is the Catholic position on the death penalty?”
    Actually Obama is not against the death penalty. The Catholic position on the death penalty right now, as opposed to the position of the Church for 1950 years, could charitably be called confused.

    “What is the Catholic position on helping the poor?”

    That we each have an individual duty to the poor. Christ did not spend time in Judaea crying out for Caesar to establish a welfare state.

    “What is the Catholic position on taking care of children?”

    That they are best taken care of by their parents in the bonds of Holy Matrimony. That the Church is opposed to homosexual adoption, something pushed by the Obama administration. That sex education is best left up to parents, as opposed to the State. That they are not to be slaughtered by the type of child murder called abortion.

  • The Catholic position on death penalty is clear: visiting the death penalty on the unborn is murder. The blood of 53 million innocents cries out to the Lord for vengeance, and Scripture says, “Vengeance is mind; I shall repay.” Payment time draweth nigh.

    The Catholic position on helping the poor is clear: each member of the Body of Christ is to do corporal works of mercy and not abdicate that responsibility to Caesar. It’s called personal responsibility and accountability.

    The Catholic position on taking care of children is clear: raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

    No people who allow the death penalty to be visited on the unborn or who accept the sanctification of the filth of homosexual sodomy deserve health care. The people of Judah and Israel found this out the hard way. It took deportation by Nebuchadnezzer and Sennacherib to bring them to that realization. The wages of sin are death!

    “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto thee as well.” That’s the ticket to recovery.

    The Gospel of conversion and repentance precedes health and prosperity. All the time. Everywhere. And in every case.

  • Donald

    millions of Catholics and I disagree with you.

    You want to avoid providing healthcare to others, you confuse you religious belief with state actions, you are willing to vote for the party of the death penalty, you keep discussing some nanny state which is some concoction of the selfish.

    I must admit this quote “Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our civilization. Homosexual marriage extends to a sexual perversion the same honored status of marriage to the union between man and woman blessed by Christ at Cana. That you can’t see how this impacts you is an indication of how unimportant the Faith is to you. The whole drive for homosexual marriage is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that homosexual sex is always evil. It has nothing to do with marriage per se, but rather is another way that homosexual activists seek to compel people to act as if homosexuality is normal and good.” is funny. I for one find your suggestion that allowing my neighbor to be different and either an endorsement or encouraging it unsupported by mine or anyones commentary. I have no desire to live in your theocracy.

    good luck

  • This is amusing.

    Truth does not depend on what millions of Catholics think or don’t think. Truth is not subject to a Democratic vote.

    Scripture says that sodomizers, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, liars, murderers and drunkards do NOT get to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. It doesn’t matter what millions of Catholics think. BTW, God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah because of their sexual filth. God does NOT change. He always does the same thing in the same way. So we should buckle up.

    Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God which is a theocracy. And Heaven most assuredly is a theocracy where Scripture says the sexual perverts are unwelcome. On the other hand, chaste and celibate people of same sex attraction are welcome.

    So if someone doesn’t want to live in a theocracy, then the only other alternative is hell.

  • Once again you failed to address the statement of the Pope regarding the threat to religious liberty posed by the Obama administration.

    “You want to avoid providing healthcare to others”
    No what I want to do away with is ObamaCare. I have no problem with the State assisting the indigent who need medical treatment, but such a goal does not require turning over our healthcare system to the Federal government.

    “you are willing to vote for the party of the death penalty,”

    3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

    “you keep discussing some nanny state which is some concoction of the selfish.”

    If twere only true.

    ” I have no desire to live in your theocracy.”

    By your definition you have been living in a theocracy for some time if the definition of a theocracy is not having gay marriage. Since the Church is opposed to gay marriage I assume therefore that you think the Church is attempting to impose a theocracy. Here’s a hint: Catholic teaching that you don’t like does not constitute a theocracy.

  • “you are willing to vote for the party of the death penalty,”

    That would include Obama and the regime’s piratical, untrammeled drone assassination campaigns with no trial, no jury, no habeus corpus, no countless appeals, . . .

    I never imagined I would agree with Ralph Nader on anything. Obama is a war criminal.

  • “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia”…..so you say

    I believe nearly 50M uninsured does

    Your primacy of a single issue versus a portfolio of selfishness exhibited by the party of selfish and vengeful people make no sense.

    You want the state to define marriage for our church. I don’t care what the state defines for marriage. I care what my church defines for marriage. If you care so much for their definition or marriage, you should care about their definition of divorce too….do you? I could go on.

    I’m still waiting for your response to your first wild assertion – please list all of the ruinous Obama policies and lets go through them.

    -guy

  • I would note once again that you have not addressed the warning of Pope Benedict as to the threat posed to American religious freedom by the Obama administration.

    “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia”…..so you say

    I agree with the words but they are Cardinal Ratzinger’s, not mine

    “Your primacy of a single issue versus a portfolio of selfishness exhibited by the party of selfish and vengeful people make no sense.”

    Actually I believe that Obama’s enthusiastic support for the child murder known as abortion that snuffs out almost a million innocent lives a year in this country would be sufficient for no decent human being to give him any support whatsoever. As it happens, I also oppose Obama on a whole host of issues.

    “You want the state to define marriage for our church.”

    No, I want the State to recognize that marriage can no more exist between two homosexuals than it can between a man and his car. The attempt to transform marriage into something it is not should offend anyone with an atom of common sense.

    “I’m still waiting for your response to your first wild assertion – please list all of the ruinous Obama policies and lets go through them.”

    You will find hundreds of posts by me and others on this site listing chapter and verse as to Obama’s support for abortion, his HHS mandate, his insane fiscal policies, his ruinous economic policies, his contempt for American liberties, etc. Have a ball reading them.

  • Obama’s enthusiastic support? you should demonstrate the enthusiasm. I’m guessing you can demonstrate as much as you can his ruinous policies.

    you should be able to list them, it should be easy. Don’t expect me to do your work. Its your wild assertion.

    Ratzinger can say anything he wants, you quote it since it supports your position without defense of any of your other positions. Many Bishops / Cardinals say many things – should I gather a list of a few? I’m sure you will find many US positions and policies under attack.

  • I would note once again that you have not addressed the warning of Pope Benedict as to the threat posed to American religious freedom by the Obama administration.

    “Obama’s enthusiastic support? you should demonstrate the enthusiasm. ”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM

    “you should be able to list them, it should be easy. Don’t expect me to do your work. Its your wild assertion.”

    The posts are there, read them. Even trolls have to work at this blog.

    “Ratzinger can say anything he wants”

    Yes, and since he is now Pope that gives added heft to his letter.

  • @LPM

    “please list all of the ruinous Obama policies and lets go through them.”

    Why don’t you list all of the successful Obama polices?

  • Obama’s enthusiastic support? Yyou should demonstrate how he has been enthusiastic. the enthusiasm. I’m guessing you can demonstrate his enthusiasm as well much as you have been able to demonstrate how his policies have been ruinous can his ruinous policies.

    Yyou should be able to list them, it should be easy. Don’t expect me to do your work. Its your wild assertion.

    Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger can say anything he wants., Yyou quote him it since he it supports your position even though other statements contradict yours. without defense of any of your other positions. Many Bishops and / Cardinals have issued different statements say many things – should I gather a list of a few? I’m sure you will find many that are critical of American government US positions and policies under attack.

    Editor’s note: Just thought I would help you make your comment a little clearer.

  • LPM “I believe nearly 50M uninsured (does (have the same moral weight)”

    When you start fibbing about numbers you really lose me. You know that number includes 20 M illegal immigrants which Obamacare doesn’t cover since anyone who says it does is a liar right ? You know it includes another 15-20M who Choose not to have health insurance though they could afford it. One of my aunts fit that category. Compelling them to pay for health insurance may or may not be good policy but it is hardly providing the needy a Benefit. So we are left with 10 M with a real problem. Many of these only have short term gaps in coverage or they did until Obama took office and created the category of Out-of-the-Workforce whether-you-like-it-or-not. A 50 page bill could have taken care of this issue without the other 2650 pages tacked on. Finally like most Leftists you confuse medical insurance with medical care. Obama has explicitly stated on national TV that his (rationing) boards will deny care and tell people to take a pain pill (and die out of sight). But to you that is compassion because everyone except illegals of course has “Health Insurance”. Actually you were careful to avoid saying that everyone ( including illegals) doesn’t already have health Care in the US. What kind of health care does a bankrupt country provide? Let’s ask residents of Greece, Spain, Italy and the late great Soviet Union how that worked with their universal coverage.

    Finally let’s get real. Leftists like Obama and yourself want a single payer system. Obama has said so himself on tape. So have many Democrats. OK if single payer is so great, present the reasons to the public and convince them to go to such a system. The deception and corruption evident with Obamacare have poisoned the public’s opinion of it but Progressives like yourself still want to ram it through. Thanks for your compassion.

  • Rozin, Donald and God’s Angels, Saints and Saints-Militant, it is no use trying to drum sense into LPM& Company. They have sold their souls to the Devil. By and by they will come face to face with their Maker…..His words????? “”””THY WILL BE DONE””””. Let us just pray for them. God will win this War, as He has always Done when Satan raises his proud and arrogant head against Him.

  • I love my Catholic faith but the Church leaders are corrupt. The Church wanted Obamacare and lobbied heavily for it. They asked for abortion ‘neutral’ language which they didn’t get. Instead, they got a ‘universal healthcare system’ that pays for abortion, birth control and the morning after pill and will force them to pay also. It makes me cry they would push for a universal health system with a President whose first act as President was to reverse the Mexico City policy but our bishops are blind. Our Pope in First Things wrote an article in 2006 titled,”Europe and It’s Discontents” where he writes, “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctirne and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” So, after Obama was elected he wrote his economic encyclical to give to Obama to let him know he’s on the same page except for abortion. Their economic ideas are alike and if the church wants something they are willing to ask for ‘abortion neutral’ language or call cops on their own parishoners who maybe trying to educate on candidates prolife record but it might threaten their tax exempt status. Ultimately, the Pope has showed his true stripes when he set policy regarding the sexual abuse in the Church and ignored all the abused children for the betterment of the Church. The Church leaders are all about themselves and their kingdom of brick and mortar, the laity and unborn are runover ultimately. We need religious freedom and conscience rights but mine have been run over to promote abortion around the world. I think the bishops are a little too late.

  • [email protected]

    Thank you but I’m not trying to convince LPM, I’m trying to drive him off. Progressives hate facts and thus history (and you know what Burke etc said about that). However they have an endless supply of agitprop techniques to dance around using words.

  • “Once again that is not an endorsement of ObamaCare as the opposition of the Bishops in this country indicate. I note that you did not address the concern of the Pope that I linked to about the assault on religious freedom by the Obama administration.”

    Now, Donald there were individual bishops who raised concerns about how a governement takeover of health care can be squared with the principle of subsidiarity. But the U.S. Bishops, by and large, seemed to have no problem with government run healthcare. The only reason the USCCB finally oppsed Obamacare was its funding of abortion.

    The U.S. Bishops are far more enthusiastic about opposing the death penalty and supporting illegal immigration (issues where a Catholic can faithfully take either side) than they are about opposing Obamacare, even post-HHS mandate.

    With illegal immigration the USCCB filed a friend of the court brief opposing AZ’s SB 1070. You even had Cdl. Mahony and now Cdl Dolan engaging in despicable, and I think libelous, attacks against SB 1070 (I link to Cdl Dolan’s attack in an earlier post on this thread). Did they do any such thing with Obamacare, even with its coverage of abortion? NOOOO!!!!

    I don’t think I need to go into how badly the bishops have allowed themselves to be expploited by anti-death penalty activists. Heck, even Bp. Paprocki’s presentation was fuzzy on that issue. He cites the 2nd Edition of CCC, which any theologically literate person knows is problematically worded with its lumping prudential judgments in with the doctrinal aspects.

    Like I have said before, until the bishops own up to how they have contributed to this mess, it will continue. Mark my word!!

  • Furthermore, I find it odd that Bp Paprocki didn’t just cite the then-Cdl Ratzinger 2004 Letter to Cdl McCarrick,which by the way was issued in Ratzinger’s offical capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which gives it magisterial heft independent of the fact that he is now Pontiff.

    It seems that our bishops are allergic to that letter because they never mention it when it comes to the death penalty.

  • “I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. ”

    Read that again, you in the Decadent, Democrat Party. The Decent Party has nothing in THEIR party platform that is a “serious sin,” let alone an intrinsic evil. What more is needed to know to have a “properly formed conscience” in who to vote for?

  • Rozin, hear you, loud and clear. However, my experience (and I am a 74 year-old Cradle Catholic to-day) is that those who hate God and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church can never be outshouted. So, you can go on hammering them but they will never bend.

    @Greg….please remember Peter, the First Pope, denied His Master Three times and when Jesus was being crucified the whole lot of the Eleven, except young John, were nowhere to be found.

    And when Jesus appeared to them in the Upper Room where they had locked themselves out of fear, they were so ashamed. YET He did not disinherit them of the Apostolate He had bestowed upon them….and we are here, 2,000 year plus, hail and strong and have weathered more horrifying persecution and torture that this one on our hands.

    True, your Bishops were, no doubt, asleep when the Evil One was planning how to hit Christ’s Bride. But, believe me, He will defend her and all His faithful Flock . And we remain steadfast and strong and SHALL NEVER BOW OR KNLEEL before the Beast

  • Paul Ryan has said he is comfortable with Romney’s postion on abortion for the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Such is an intrinsic evil and a moral absolute. Please Google: “Paul Ryan on airplane comments on abortion” to confirm this. Tom Hoefling of the American Independent Party appears to be 100% in sync with Catholic Teaching.

  • %Ed Hummel,

    “Paul Ryan has said he is comfortable with Romney’s postion on abortion for the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

    So is Pope John Paul II and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Read for yourself:

    “Pope John Paul II, in his groundbreaking 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), stated that legislative compromise was morally acceptable in certain situations.

    ‘[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but, rather, a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects’ (73).”

    “Doerflinger echoed this point in his comments for the Register.
    ‘The Church opposes all direct abortion and federal funding for all such abortion. But without supporting the exceptions, the bishops’ conference has supported the restrictions placed on abortion funding by the Hyde Amendment and similar laws for the sake of the good they do and the many lives they save.’”

    For the sake of the babies the only chance they have is if we elect the Decent Republican Party, the party that Bishop Poprocki says has NO positions supporting intrinsic evil and no serious sins, unlike the Decedent, Democrat Party. Not voting or voting for a third party only helps the Decedent, Democrat Party. They love if people did that. Don’t be a fool, vote for God and country and the only party that can defeat Obama.

  • If Obama is re-elected, his SCOTUS appointees will ensure that the worst abortion regimen on the planet will be in force until the Second Coming of Christ.

    A third party vote likely will assure Obama enshrines untrammeled abortion and tacit infanticide as the law of the land.

  • T. Shaw

    And don’t forget euthanasia for seniors now that hospitals will be fined if 1% of seniors have to be readmitted into the hospital within 30 days of being discharged this first year of Obamacare, 2% the second year of Obamacare, and 3% in the third year. Hospitals will find ways of not readmitting such patients to prevent from being fined. Thank you U.S. Bishops for supporting the initiation of euthanasia in our new “healthcare” universal coverage.

  • “If Obama is re-elected, his SCOTUS appointees will ensure that the worst abortion regimen on the planet will be in force until the Second Coming of Christ.”

    Maybe he doesn’t need to appoint a single one. John Roberts himself says he bows to elected officials actions, perhaps as homage to the Official Bower in Chief. John Marshall RIP

  • We need to rally to the support of such courage when it comes to the surface…Every call and letter of support to the Bishop Jenky’s and Paprocki’s is a stake in the heart of the diabolical…which I suppose would have to have one first. 🙂

  • Rozin: Truth.

    Stilbelieve: Thank you. We’ll see in November if most AARP members will vote for their executioner. Plus, Obamacare is a major reason no one is hiring . . . There are many reasons they didn’t institute it until after this election.

  • “@Greg….please remember Peter, the First Pope, denied His Master Three times and when Jesus was being crucified the whole lot of the Eleven, except young John, were nowhere to be found.”

    Yes, but are these actions we should condone? No, of course not. At least one can say that the Apostles were under a great deal of duress, whereas the bad behavior of some of our most prominent bishops is done in the freest country ever known to mankind…at least for now. Oh, by the way, the Peter repented, as did the Apostles who ran away.

  • “Oh, by the way, the Peter repented, as did the Apostles who ran away.”

    That should read “Peter repented” not “the Peter repented”.

  • John and LPM’s consciences deviate not a whit from the demands of the Left (and share the same bumpersticker depth), yet they pillory the rest of us.

    The Patriotic Association–it’s not just for Chinese collaborationists anymore.

  • “Tom Hoefling of the American Independent Party appears to be 100% in sync with Catholic Teaching.”

    If so, and Mr. Hoefling doesn’t deviate from Church teaching on other indisputables (the HHS mandate, etc), then vote for him.

  • This comment by the bishop has been nothing but extremely helpful for those of us working to win Catholic votes for the President. Keep on keeping on!

  • How any Catholic can support the most pro-abortion president in the history of our nation Kurt is beyond me. At least Catholics who sacrificed to the Emperors of Rome had the excuse of doing so to save their necks. May God forgive all of you misguided souls.

  • “This comment by the bishop has been nothing but extremely helpful for those of us working to win Catholic votes for the President. Keep on keeping on!”

    Catholics for Obama makes about as much sense as Chickens for Colonel Sanders.

  • “Faithful Citizenship,” operates in sovereignty, a sovereignty that constitutes government, a sovereignty that is disembowled by the rejection of the Supreme Sovereign.

  • I wonder if “Kurt” is also including the Bishop’s reference to the Dem convention rejecting mention of God three times after it was taken out of the platform. It was reinserted only after a media firestorm forced Obama to respond. I guess I can see how Catholics for Obama might ignore the disconnect between their religion and abortion. However for Obama Catholics to also be cool about the Dems dismissing God (and Obama has been quite consistent himself in that regard) seems like they are making religious affiliation a complete sham. Maybe Kurt means “Recovering Catholics” for Obama.

  • John says:

    “If churches want to get political, they must be taxed like any other business.”

    The Supreme Court Justices are not paid for JUSTICE. The Supreme Court Justices receive compensation. How can one be paid a price for Justice? The Catholic Church proclaims the Gospel. Donations are given, along with gifts, and behests. You would tax donations and gifts? The church property is held in trust for all generations. Isn’t it bad enough Obama has mortgaged our posterity for the next ten generations? You would have our posterity not even have the benefit of the proclaimation of the Gospel through our gifts and donations? Perhaps the Gospel proclaimed by the Church sounds political to you, but it is God speaking to all men and Divine Providence for all men, a Divine Providence prayed for and invoked in our Declaration of Independence. Can one get any more “political” than to invoke our founding principles of all men being created equal and endowed by “their Creator” with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Anyone who denies our founding principles denies his own citizenship in America. The Catholic church is just reminding you, John, that when you choose to reject God, you reject your founding principles and lose your citizenship in America and become a citizen of wherever that might be. Lenin called his supporters “useful idiots.”

    The Church speaks God’s truth to the people. The state is to speak God’s truth to the people. The Church is the servant of God. The state is the servant of the people. There was no HHS Mandate in the ACA when Congress passed the ACA. Now, there is an HHS Mandate in Obamacare, inscribed after Congress passed the ACA. Who in God’s world has sovereign authority to cheat and swindle their constituents and then tell the people that it is good for them? Wife beaters and batterers assault their wife and then tell them that they asked for it. The HHS Mandate is an abuse of power and ought to be put on the ballot, along with abortion, and SS unions and prayer ban. You do believe in democracy, don’t you John?

  • Kurt,

    You won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • Too much involvement with politics T. Shaw and I wonder if anyone can get into Heaven. (Of course I suspect the same thing regarding the Law, so pray for me!)

  • From Dale’s link:

    “According to Smith’s group, “Faithful Citizenship meetings were organized by the Diocese of Cleveland with the goal of aiding Catholics in preparing themselves to vote this November. The forums, led in part by open Obama-supporter Karen Leith, downplay abortion and religious freedom, issues of irreducible importance to Catholic voters.”

    Similar efforts in my diocese. Lots of equivocation. “Yes, Dems support abortion but Repubs are opposed to programs helping the poor, therefore vote for Dems.”

    In all charity, the bishops are disordered in their reasoning and at risk for cooperation with evil if they do not come out more forcefully against the Dems as Bishop Paprocki has.

  • Don’t miss the anti-Mormon pushpolling campaign either, Phillip.

    And the Obama campaign’s refusal to actually condemn the tactic they are benefitting from.

    “We say it’s out of bounds, but we’re not going to call on others to forego pro-Obama hatemongering.”

  • As to the pro-Obama campaigns in the parishes, I’m not remotely surprised. There are plenty of self-styled Catholics who proclaim their vociferous opposition to–and even hatred of–the pro-life movement. All without any consequences, so why should we expect anything different?

  • Upon further review, let me apologize for that brutal comment to Kurt. I don’t have any right to ascribe such nasty motives to him, and I am sorry for doing so.

  • This is what we do when we are being ripped apart from the “inside”! May the Holy Spirit, attracted by gestures like the one Dale just offered, move back into our lives…please Dear Lord.

  • Mac,

    I add you to the list, which is quite long, sadly. Pray for the living and the dead, a Sprirtual Work of Mercy.

    Here is a spritual suggestion for our catholic Obama-Worshipers. Pray for the love of humility [The First Joyful Mystery]. We are all sinners. We must constantly pray for forgivenesss; for grace to avoid sin; and for deliverance from evil. No one is good except God.

    All things are possible, including our salvation, for God.

  • “Don’t miss the anti-Mormon pushpolling campaign either, Phillip.”

    We have had quite a few drive by Trolls breathing fire and brimstone about Mormons the past few months and they all go straight to our trash file.

  • I deleted two comments. Please people, we don’t need to wish for people’s death on this blog. Stop it.

  • Thank you Paul. Folks, crazy comments just hurt our cause and will not be tolerated on this blog.

  • Don, I applaud you for removing such comments. As I have freely admitted, I am not sure how much success of those of us Catholics supporting the President have obtained by our own efforts. 90% of the persuadable Catholics we have won over to supporting the President has been caused by a negative reaction to the acts of Catholics attacking the President. Those Catholics who at this stage might still vote one way or the other have already concluded that they do not risk damnation by a vote for Obama. In fact, I’m confident a majority of Catholic intended Romney voters don’t think their vote is helping to save them from hellfire.

  • Pingback: A PARTIAL CRITIQUE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM | Catholic Labor Network

Head to Head

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

The Romney and Obama campaigns have released two talking head ads.  Obama’s ad consists of a laundry list of things he wants to do, which begs the question why he didn’t do any of them in his first term.  Two things struck me about the ad.  First, where Obama says we should take the savings from not being in Afghanistan and use that money to pay down the national debt and for “nation building”, shudder, here at home.  The mendacity of this is truly startling since with a trillion-dollar deficit Obama knows that there is no money other than borrowed money that will be freed up by no more involvement in Afghanistan.  The statement screams the complete contempt that Obama has for the intelligence of most of his supporters.  Second, the sinister phrase “economic patriotism”.  It brings to mind the Democrat dream tax return.  Question One:  “How much income did you make last year?  Insert answer in blank and send a check for that sum made payable to the United States Treasury.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Head to Head

  • DMcC: “Romney’s ad was not nearly hard hitting enough, and Romney seems to be unable to bring himself to go bare knuckles against Obama.”

    He had no trouble baring his knuckles and his teeth against Gingrich and Santorum. Let me offer this proposition – Romney can only fight bare knuckles against people to his right, never to his left. This is a guy who disliked Reagan after all (as do many establishment types, remember Huntsman??). People will have to vote Against Obama not For Romney. Also they have to put more conservatives into Congress to push him. We will see if that happens. Romney is being helped more than he deserves by the collapsing economy and foreign affairs. In a year 2000 kind of race he would be obliterated.

  • “He had no trouble baring his knuckles and his teeth against Gingrich and Santorum.”

    I thought that was rather sotto voce actually. Gingrich and Santorum were not so much defeated by Romney as they were defeated by their own weaknesses as candidates. Gingrich by his colorful personal history and lack of campaign funds and Santorum by lack of campaign funds and a lack of personal discipline to not be baited by the media into going off message.

    By bare knuckles I mean something like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9qDRZ6pSRE

    Obama has a bad record and Romney can bring that up continually, but not if he confuses the issue by giving Obama the benefit of a doubt he is not entitled to.

  • I never said Santorum and Gingrich were defeated by Romney’s bare knuckles, although Romney came very very close to being ousted by each of them, ( Gingrich in FL and Santorum in MI) because he was that weak of a candidate. I’m just explaining why I am not surprised at his tepid half-hearted criticism of Obama although many people are apparently. Romney even is constraining Ryan. And for that matter have Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels etc etc not gone out of their way to tone down critiques of Obama?? (Romney would have been far happier running against Reagan back in 1980.) Look at the Repub convention. It was entirely devoted to showing the electorate Romney was not like those other mean spirited Repubs but was a warm cuddly guy. He is a nice guy but he barely mentioned the economy or jobs because he was so tied up proving he was just as nice as the Dems all are. Then people are surprised again he got no bounce.

  • Mark Tapscott posted at Instapundit . . .

    REMEMBER WHEN JIMMY CARTER WAS BLOWING REAGAN OUT OF THE WATER? Powerline’s John Hinderaker offers a timely reminder that something very similar to what is happening now with the Gallup Poll and President Obama occurred at a similar point in the 1980 campaign. “Americans are by no means infallible, but are they really dumb enough, or self-destructive enough, to want another four years of Barack Obama’s failures,” Hinderaker asks. Me, neither.

    Don’t get cocky, people.

  • “economic patriotism” France has announced a 75% tax for the millionaires. Courtesy of The Creative Minority Report. Does America have enough millionaires to have”economic patriotism”? The corporations ought to exhibit a little more “economic patriotism” at least by creating jobs with all the stimulus money instead of sitting on it. Fool me once, it is your fault. Fool me twice, it is my fault.

  • “Romney’s ad was not nearly hard-hitting enough, and Romney seems to be unable to bring himself to go bare knuckles against Obama.” Obama’s villainy is hard to approach but the campaign is still young.

Dropping all insurance coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach…

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

 

Founded in 1972, the National Catholic Bioethics Center  (NCBC) “pledges its fidelity to the magisterial teaching of the Church and to the bishops who provide leadership and pastoral guidance to clergy and laity on complex bioethical issues.”

NCBC recently has published a detailed analysis which concludes that it would be immoral for a Catholic who owns a private business to purchase health insurance for his or her workers under Obamacare.   The conclusion is terse: “Dropping all coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach.”

Assessing all of the options available, the NCBC also calls for action, including suing the Obama administration: “We support and encourage the many lawsuits challenging this injustice and expect them to be successful before the Supreme Court.”

The NCBC’s excellent analysis raises some politically difficult choices for faithful Catholic business owners. If they choose to drop insurance coverage, it is likely their employees will be forced by circumstances—fully intended by those who crafted Obamacare—into healthcare plans offering medical services that are contrary to Church teaching.  While those employees would not be forced to avail themselves of those morally objectionable services, the simple fact remains that those services would be funded by taxpayer money, meaning in this instance the taxes paid by those businesses owned and operated by faithful Catholics.

Is this not an infringement on religious liberty?

 

To read the NCBC analysis, click on the following link:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=0

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Dropping all insurance coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach…

  • I believe this (the dropping of private insurance) was the intended result…in order to ensure a single-payer system. Such a system, in the end, will be FAR more horrible and anti-life.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Oct 20th, Saturday is the third Stand Up For Religious Freedom National Rally day. The 1st was Friday March 23rd. June 8th, a Friday as well, was the second rally day. Please go to standupforreligiousfreedom.com to find out more.
    This mandate is from the pit of Hell.
    Obama has chosen P.P. as his pet. To hell with the Catholic church and it’s two millennia track record of service to the poor, is what it feels like when we read the individual and H.H.S. Mandates.
    By the way. The abortion funding mandate is sickening. No less than a dollar a month per subscriber that is enrolled in that particular plan.
    Which plan has it? Thats the $0.13 question.
    To call RU-486 preventive medicine is akin to saying Hiltler was just another misinformed city organizer trying his best to bring Change and Hope to his countrymen.

  • I fail to see the moral calculus here. Both company plans and the alternative cover objectionable services. Both are paid for directly or indirectly by the employer. What is gained by dumping good benefits for current employees? Making the situation harder on employees and their families who will probably be forced into inferior and more expensive coverage doesn’t sadly…seem to enter in the equations of many in the Church these days. Some Catholic businesses will likely lose good employees over such a move. As a parent of a child with a chronic life long pre-existing condition I would be very challenged as an employee. My Catholic employer denies paying for coverage that my family desperately needs because it covers services we’ll…as Catholics…NEVER use. Sometimes we can succeed in making ourselves look cruel and Pharisaic in the eyes of many…and not without cause…sadly.

  • I disagree. The most morally acceptable way of adrressing this issue is to continue to offer health insurance, but to ignore the HHS mandate. This would then force the govenment to fine those who do not adhere to the mandate. Those who are fined should refuse to pay and continue to refuse to pay even if it meant losing buildings, property etc. This would force the govenment to shed its sheeps clothing and would bring into the daylight the actual war that we are in. Read Bonhoffer. The same thing that happened in Nazi Germany is happening here. Civel disobedience is a MUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!e

  • I agree with the civil disobedience angle. Offer and ignore….AND join a class action relief lawsuit.

  • So then could the Catholic employer who drops buying insurance coverage, raise the employee’s pay so they can buy their own coverage that is suitable for them and their family?

  • “So then could the Catholic employer who drops insurance coverage, raise the employee’s pay so they can buy their own”

    That’s what I would think.

  • The only moral response is to drop insurance coverage when government regulation demands that insurance coverage include an intrinsic moral evil. It doesn’t matter if the insurance coverage does a thousand good things for needy and sick people. If the coverage provides for one intrinsic evil (such as abortifacients and contraceptives), then the Catholic employer (indeed, any authentically Christian employer) must as a matter of righteousness and holiness reject it. The end of Matthew chapter 6 says that our Heavenly Father knows that we need all these things, but we are commanded to put His Kingdom and His righteousness first. Do those who obfuscate this issue with cries of “But the insurance does all kinds of good things!” so distrust Jesus as to lack faith in His promise? The answer is yes because their God isn’t Jesus but Caesar.

  • Pingback: Solidarity Health Share: Discussion Starter | The American Catholic
  • If Catholic employers drop health insurance to avoid the mandate, they are simply shifting the burden of the fight onto the individual Catholic families who would then be forced to go out and buy the same insurance privately or refuse and be fined. So the fight trickles down to those who cannot fight on their own. The Catholic Church as an institution and private businesses need to come out swinging on this issue with all their might because they are the ones with the resources to stand against it. Individual families just simply cannot fight on their own.

  • If the employees are illegal aliens, will they still insist on coverage being dropped ?

  • Several years ago, Phylis Schlafly on Eagle Forum promised that no insurance company could compete with the bottomless taxfilled pockets of the admministration. Congress has been swindled, as have the taxpayers. Obama has thrown the taxpayers under the bus. The Supreme Court has thrown us under the bus. We may as well trust in God, for we are so doomed. Created in original innocence, the rational, immortal soul of the human being brought into existence by our Creator is the standard of Justice for our nation. Legally and morally innocent at creation, the newly begotten soul is necessary. We, the people NEED the innocence of our posterity.

    The gargantuan, monstro, Goliath, Philistine government is poised to eat the seven fat cows by subsuming all private property to pay for its compensation, health insurance and pensions.

    Congress needs to demand that all issues not explicitly enumerated and declared by the Affordable Healthcare Act be expunged as not being legislated by the will of the people. The HHS Mandate was added after the passage of the ACA. What kind of representative government is this? constituted by whom? I did not buy this. Congress did not buy this. No sane person, sovereign person bought this. One nation under God did not buy this.

  • It isn’t only employers who are facing the question of what to do about this. I work for a tiny non-profit and have been purchasing my own insurance for years. I have already received a letter from my insurer informing me that they are now offering me “free” coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, among other things. Should I drop my insurance coverage? If so, would I be able to find a new plan that doesn’t cover these objectionable services? It is my understanding that all new plans have to cover this.

Recession Here We Come

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

26 Responses to Recession Here We Come

  • I know! Let’s print some more dollars and more and more,more,more,…..we will call it..Stupidulus!
    Yeah…that’s the ticket. Here’s your stimulus coming back at you Burn-naki.

  • When are people going to wake up that liberalism and socialist democracy don’t work?

  • PWP is absolutely correct.

    Everywhere they tried this crappola the same thing (economic ruin) occurred.

    Chavez rings in 2010 by state rationing of electricity.

    Chávez appears to have huge support from the poor: The Venezuelan poor seem to love Chávez’s nanny state, and his extremely succesful public relations gimmicks. Fidel Castro is Chávez mentor in many ways, and Castro’s pupil is exceeding his master. Sadly, as Revista Veja shows, things are a lot worse since Chávez took power:

    ——————————— -Before Chávez— Now
    People below poverty level——-43%————54%
    Unemployment———————11%————16%
    Income per capita—————-$4,650——–$4,190
    Number of industries————11,000———5,000
    Foreign investment————$2 billion——$1 billion
    Inflation—————————–11%————17%
    Public debt——————$27.5 billion—$44.8 billion

    The (Nicaragua devolution into marxism) economic figures are depressing. From 1950-1975 under the dictator Somoza (whose departure was the one good thing the Sandinistas helped achieve) economic growth was the highest in Latin America: 6.8% per year. Per capita GNP in 1977, just before the Communists took over, was $2500 per person. In 1990, when the Sandinista regime fell, per capita GNP was $500 per person. That was the great achievement of liberation theology in Nicaragua.

    That is what liberation theology would have done to the rest of Latin America. That it couldn’t, that it was shut down, was the work of Joseph Ratzinger.

  • At http://www.kitco.com: Comex gold pops higher following fresh batch of weak US economic data. Thank you, Ben!!!

    Liberal Logic 101:

    Picture the Titanic. If the Captain had called for “full speed ahead” and rammed the iceberg a second time, not only would the ship not have sunk, it would have become more efficient and more luxurious!

    Geithner and the Bernank are stealing your savings as we click-clack.

  • The sad part is, this proves that liberal free market economics also does not work.

  • Absolutely not, Ted. It rather proves that corporate socialism which has dominated much of the 20th and this the beginning of the 21st century does not work. We have not had a truly free market economic system. rather, we have had a system over-regulated by the Federal Government which rewards businesses that it likes, and penalizes those which it doesn’t like. This is particularly true in e energy industry where coal and nuclear power plants are penalized, but useless solar and wind energy subsidized while natural gas reaps profit hand over fist. If the regulatory playing field were leveled, and fossil fuel, nuclear power, solar and wind generators were held to the same standards of cleanliness and emissions (yes, solar and wind pollute tons of heavy metals to the environment) without any government subsidy, nuclear would win hands down because one eraser sized pellet of uranium equals tons of coal and tens of thousands of cubic feet of natural gas. But Government interferes. So you’re 100% incorrect on this score. We do NOT have a free market system.

  • “The sad part is, this proves that liberal free market economics also does not work.”

    I think it proves rather the contrary Ted, as Obama’s economic policies have been anything but free market.

  • How would you know, Ted? We haven’t had it in this country since 1965 and only in limited fashion since 1932.

  • Ted,

    Whenever two people make a voluntary exchange that they are both satisfied with, the free market is working. That’s all it is.

  • How can people protect their savings from the license taken by B & G under Obama?

  • PM: That is a difficult question.

    The Fed and “financial repression”: running inflation higher than interest rates to reduce government debt loads. It papers over debt-burdened economy. The Fed gravely fears deflation. Connection between expanding monetary base (printing money) and employment growth is tenuous. Inflation incentivizes buying before more dollar value drops. Not so sure about it fostering capital investment and hiring. Now they try unlimited QEternity.

    With a $16 trillion national debt, the Fed cannot allow rates to rise. Each percentage point up is $150 bilion in US interest expense.

    There is no free market. The stock and bond markets are puppets dancing on the Fed’s strings.

    “Treasuries Aren’t Safe, What Is?” Matt Phillips, WSJ. Physical assets, e.g., gold, which has little industrial use. Gold is primarily a financial asset: price rises with inflation expectations and economic, market, and political uncertainty (up $24 today). Triple-A German sovereign debt, conservative issuer. US corporate bonds could be safe haven, but if rates rise, prices fall. Non-interest deposits with unlimited FDIC insurance (ending soon). Short term UST’s purcased at discount.

    I don’t know. I have some gold: about 10% of net financial assets. Farm land (already inflated) may be a safety valve investment.

    This all plays into the Fed’s hand of getting asset prices higher, with no rise in interest rates.

    They got us right where they want us: at the end of the rope.

  • “There is no free market.  The stock and bond markets are puppets dancing on the Fed’s strings.”

    That’s why whenever anyone claims that unfettered Capitalism caused this, I just want to scream! We are NOT a Capitalist society, but a Corporate Socialist one and have been for at least the last few decades if not past century since FDR’s New Deal.

  • PWP: Truth, God help us.

    It will be 100 years in 2013: Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code (income tax) both around 1913. The Founding Fathers knew. They had to amend the Constitution for the income tax.

  • That little part about fdic ending soon is very not little. Then, what to do? Be like a the squirrels?

    After trying to understand, for a long time, statements like “Oh, Patty, we’re not in business to make money.”, this may be it. Corp. socialism v Capitalism. Is it?
    Would that be a something a well compensated corp. socialist would say when looking at the loss on a tax return? Is it that individual responsibility for a business is removed to corporate oblivion?

    I have ever failed to understand how anything but pure capitalism works. Profit and wise husbandry are the purest motive of business. Time and money driving out waste of either are the marks of a business that works – sort of on par with good household budgets.

    It seems to a bookkeeping cash flow brain that the corp. socialist format is susceptible to varieties of grave dishonesty and theft. So, the .gov is both of and for well paid mismanagement specialists with no responsiblity to we the taxpayers or to we the people in its care because it’s so complicated that they get away with it?!.

  • Don’t know whether you know of or follow David Malpass, but he makes a lot of sense, often. If you didn’t catch it, you micht consider reading his opinion piece in today’s Journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578000484118713060.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

  • Mike Flynn at “Big Government.”

    “Make no mistake, the deteriorating economic situation is the result of Obama’s policies. Since the end of the recession we’ve had massive stimulus, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, ObamaCare, Dodd Frank and a host of new regulations. We have also been promised a huge tax increase should Obama win reelection. If you were intentionally trying to trigger a recession, you’d be hard pressed to come up with more effective policies.

    “Obama’s reelection campaign is predicated on the myth that the economy, while weak, is steadily improving. It isn’t–at all. Come November, Obama ought to take his rightful place in the unemployment line.”

  • Curious. I agree with just about all of the above, yet . . .

    A week or two ago I suggested, on another thread, that you quit reviling Ayn Rand, and accept her good ideas and I was answered with derision. She promoted laissez-faire capitalism, but remember:

    1) The amazing thing about our capitalism in the US is that it works as well as it does, given our constant interference.

    2) Nobody ever said life was fair. Christ and his commandments, first, love God, second, love your neighbor, are the the best mitigation of that unfortunate lack of fairness.

    3) Remember we’ve never seen “socialism” our experience is with “dialectal materialism”, which almost by definition excludes the possibility of God, and it is not clear to me that what we are being pushed towards is anything new. If you want pure socialism, go become a Benedictine, though they are less than pure socialist as well.

    4) Pure economics is without morality (and to me that also means godless), whether it is pure capitalism or pure socialism. And the line between pure capitalism and pure socialism is a continuum. The only thing we argue about is where on that line we should be at any point in time.

    I’m glad I don’t have to make the “right” decisions. What is clear to me is that the federal government is way off track. They are taking over charitable acts, presumably to be fair, but the recipients of those acts are not fair, whatever that means, and it is in the nature of man to distort those gifts into rights and demand more. Of necessity that coerces me to forfeit some fruits of my labor and denies me the opportunity to practice Christian Charity.

    Fr. Charles VanDoren, my Neuman Chaplin in college, told me in about 1967 that one of the greatest hardships that could ever be imposed on a Christian was to deny him the opportunity to practice Christian Charity. Obviously the import of his statement is indicated by the fact that here, 45 years later I can quote it.

    Wonder what Obama’s “great society” will leave me when all is said and done.

  • “Pure economics is without morality (and to me that also means godless), whether it is pure capitalism or pure socialism. And the line between pure capitalism and pure socialism is a continuum. The only thing we argue about is where on that line we should be at any point in time. ”

    In Quod Apostolici Muneris, Pope Leo XIII was very clear about where on that line we should be:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

  • SYWink:

    Agree with most of what you write.

    But, holy cow! You are about as old as I am.

    In any case, when I studied economics, in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, seemed it was about how relatively scarce resources/supplies/goods are distributed among relatively unlimited demands/wants/needs; and the acts in the market of rational, typically motivated buyers and sellers acting in their own best interests with usual and customary terms of exchange and financing, i.e., the seller tries to get the best price he possibly can and the buyer pays the least price he/she can obtain.

    I don’t think “rational” means being immoral or even, I could argue, amoral.

    Adam Smith and the classical economists, I think, observed the economy and tried to explain its workings.

    My issues with 21st century economists include (but are not limited to): one, they seem to be attempting to create (out of air and with government compunction) economics, policies and national programs as they think they should be, and two, they appear to be ideologues intent on advancing “dull and illogical” agendas such as income/wealth redistribution and the liberal nightmare that technocrats know better than the free market how to bring supply, demand, and price into equilibrium and bring about peace and prosperity. This despite the fact they failed every time they tried. See Einstein’s definition of “insanity.”

    In conclusion, until the Second Coming of Christ, my advice is “Don’t fight the Fed.”

  • well this article wasn’t filled with any hyperbole now was it?

  • Nope, merely a sober look at the disastrous state of the Obama economy. Denial LPM is a poor substitute for looking at the facts.

  • Wwell this blogpostarticle wasn’t hyperbbolic,filled with any hyperbole now was it?

    Editor’s Note: As an act of charity I will continue to help edit some of our guest’s comments – for educational purposes only.

  • Donald, singular facts out of a portfolio is not an effective story

    Paul, grow up – I didn’t know this was a child’s site. Feel free to delete my account

  • This may be insane – that is submitting a note for the 5th time and expecting a different result. I don’t suppose it was Einstein who said something like “this could be a hole with no bottom,” but I feel compelled to answer Paul WP, Mac (as I see you called), T Shaw (yes, I just turned 65) and add a note to my prior comments:

    1) I studied economics as a science at The George Washington University. Science is amoral (as is God’s universe). I think you can check with Galileo on that. Ayn Rand promoted laissez-faire economics, which is not real world, but is a science. She may have overstated her case, but who doesn’t in today’s day and age when that is what it takes to make your point.

    Consider that if you are going to do an experiment to test the result of radiating some organic compound, you can’t throw a handful of carbon on the compound in the middle of the experiment or you corrupt your science.

    Same with economics. If you are going to make what is in your wallet your ration book you can’t throw guilt or conscience or compassion into the middle of the transaction and use it as some form of payment. Forget feelings, you can’t even inject an Arab oil embargo, such as we had in the 1970s, and expect valid scientific results.

    2) I learned economics as a philosophy (amongst a bunch of liberals who I respected immensely – their social attitudes didn’t impact their economics) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) using matrix algebra to forecast the US economy. I studied the US economy in several hundred pieces and tried to forecast the interaction of those several hundred pieces with each other. An example of two among those hundreds of numbers might be the buy/sell statistics of the auto industry with the steel industry. This was the advent of computers and the accurate mathematics was simply impossible before it could be programmed into a mainframe. Vassily Leontief got the Nobel Prize in 1973 for coming up with the idea. I grooved on that stuff for several years! But got my comeuppetance when the Arabs embargoed oil. After all exogenous variables cannot be forecast, and an arbitrary stoppage of a major import/export defines exogenous.

    I’m not advocating anything. I’m just pointing out that the economic poligy decisions are not simple. There probably isn’t any “right” answer. As for Leo XIII, I have a backlog or JP II’s encyclocials, so I haven’t read too many of Pope Leo’s lately. I suspect he was not too specific on where on the continuum between pure capitalism and pure socialism we should be. I believe he was condemning Marxism and government control of “production, distribution and exchange.” (ah – John McKendrick would be proud that I remembered that definition). The solution of course comes from Christ – “. . . love God with your whole heart and your whole soul and your whole being . . . love your neighbor as yourself. . .” I don’t think of that as ambiguous, but go ahead and try to be specific about where that falls on the continuum and then repeat that it isn’t ambiguous. It seems He, with a capital, wants us to figure it out.

    Getting back to Obama and his worshipers: as an trained economitrician, i. e. economist specializing in statistical methods, (former – or should I say archaic), as an entrepreneur (former) as a small business owner (former), as an employee (21 years) of a fortune 100 company (retired), as a landlord of low income property (sold in 2009), as an investor (current); as the wearer of many hats over half a century I truly believe that job creation by people in all of the above enumerated positions are what we need today and that won’t happen until the people in those positions, whether at your local ice cream parlor or at Coke, can forecast what their liabilities are in creation of those jobs. “Trust me” as repetitively uttered by Obama doesn’t do the trick.

    Well I might advocate something. Back at BEA when our econometric models didn’t give us the results we expected we always looked for what we were missing; what we didn’t understand, or hadn’t included. We constantly teased about getting the “correct” results by simply including “Phaniglier’s variable constant.” If we simply added, subtracted multiplied or divided by it we always came out perfect (a smile is solicited!) That is what we see in politics today, included in EVERY statistic, and it isn’t even limited to the politics of economics!. I think of it more simply as lying.

    Anybody ever read “The Begatting of the President”? — It was a take off of the bible. Chapter 1, Verse 1: “In the beginning LBJ created the Great Society.” (but I’m old, I could be wrong). Wish I still had a copy but it got lost in a move somewhere. There was a good line about Eisenhower and his propensity to play golf. The essence was that sometimes it is about what presidents (and even more so the congress) don’t do, such as screw with the economy, which are important, not what they do. It also had a line about Humphrey being “defeated by the jawbone of an ass.” Hope Mitt doesn’t meet the same fate.

    Thanks for letting me vent.

  • SYWink: “It seems He, with a capital, wants us to figure it out.”

    He, with a capital, wants us to listen to His Words and put them into practice, but first we must listen to hear the answer to our prayers. And the answers may be all different and come together as a community of LOVE and compassion.

    “LBJ created the Great Society” The Great Society was great until this society removed the only innocent Person from their midst, separating themselves from the great commandments to love God and each other.

    “Eisenhower and his propensity to play golf.”

    Eisenhower deserved to relax playing golf. Eisenhower saved the freedom of the world from Hitler. Eisenhower risked his life for his people. Eisenhower’s presidency came before the Person of God was removed from the public square and with the removal of God, the removal of the soul of man as a human being. Obama never did anything but exercise “Phaniglier’s variable constant.” the lying. Obama risks the lives of the infants who survive abortion, and the conscience freedom of every citizen. Obama worshippers believe that they are spared the contempt inflicted by the removal of freedom from the citizens. Obama worshippers are now citizens without freedom of conscience.

    “Science is amoral (as is God’s universe). I think you can check with Galileo on that.”

    An atheistic science is amoral as is an atheistic universe. Galileo taught that science could be found in the bible. Again, one must listen to the Word of God in one’s heart to know God’s will.

    “If you are going to make what is in your wallet your ration book you can’t throw guilt or conscience or compassion into the middle of the transaction and use it as some form of payment.”

    If it is my wallet, my guilt, my conscience and my compassion, especially my compassion, I am free to do so. What is not free to do is for another, even a representative, to remove my guilt, my conscience, and especially my compassion from my transaction without my consent. Money is a transmogrified form of man’s labor. The word “dollar” comes from the German word “thaylor” which means “work”. Money belongs to the worker even as it is administered by the administration.

    “accurate mathematics was simply impossible before it could be programmed into a mainframe.”

    The God factor, known as “Divine Providence” in The Declaration of Independence was overlooked and not programmed into the equation. The American economy now has to wade through the parting of the RED SEA, the human blood of 55 million babies aborted and the cost of vice instead of the construct of virtue.

    Thank you for letting me vent

  • Mary De Voe, read Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzer was called by God to deport the rebellious children of Judah into exile for their sins. But he filled with pride and as chapter 4 explains was made to eat grass like an oxen for 7 years, himself for that period exiled from his own throne, until he repented and acknowledged the supremacy of the Lord God Almighty. We have a God who does not change and who always does the right thing in the right way every time. What happened to arrogant Nebuchadnezzer can happen equally well to Barack Hussein Obama. God will not allow arrogance to go unchecked forever.

Rove and His White Board Explain the Polls

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

Karl Rove, a hero to much of the Right and a demon figure of the Left.  Frankly I have never been that impressed by Rove.  In 2000 he almost threw away a race that Bush was winning going away due to his inability to have Bush admit early in the campaign that he had once been arrested for drunk driving.  He should have told Bush, or more likely Mrs. Bush, that everything tends to come out in a presidential campaign.  Instead a Democrat political operative springs this the weekend before the election and converts an easy Bush win into a national ordeal.  In 2004 a fairly lackadaisical Bush campaign struggled to defeat John Kerry, a weak candidate who should have been little challenge.

Having said that, Rove in the video above does an excellent job  demonstrating why most presidential horserace polls, with their fixation on the 2008 electorate are, to be blunt, crap.

Michael Barone, who I have always regarded as the best political prognosticator, yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show talked about problems with the current batch of polls:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Rove and His White Board Explain the Polls

  • I’m not much of a Rove fan either. I was listeing to him on a talk radio show, I think it might have been Michael Medved. And he was going on about how Romney should come right out and say Obama is lying. However, he did say he can say, “That’s not true Mr. President and you know it isn’t true.” But isn’t that the same as saying he’s lying? I say the only way to call someone a lying bastard is to call him a lying bastard.

  • I was polled only once in my life and that was many years ago when Hillary Clinton was running for the NY Senate seat. I remember how they were phrasing every question in a way that no matter how you answered, it would come out positive for Hillary. After telling the guy who was asking me the questions, time and time again, that under no circumstance would I EVER vote for Clinton, he asked me why? I told him because of her position on abortion, especially partial birth abortion. He started to laugh at me in a very sneering, sarcastic way and I just hung up the phone on him. That is how they operate. Plus, I’ve never been polled again. I guess my name was just taken off the list.

    Here’s another interesting tidbit regarding the election: Cardinal Dolan, who gave the closing prayer at the convention, shares Ronald Reagan’s birthday, February 6th. When Timothy Dolan was born, Reagan was celebrating his 39th birthday. A coincidence?

  • Reagan celebrated his 39th birthday for many years.

    As for Rove, I don’t know anyone who considers him a hero. The more rightward you go, the more you find animosity toward him. I don’t know if that’s fair or not, but he tends to get lumped in with the more moderate compromise-oriented Republican talking heads.

  • ‘He started to laugh at me in a very sneering, sarcastic way”

    That is a prime example of a push-pull poll which is basically a call in support of a candidate disguised as a poll.

  • In 2000 he almost threw away a race that Bush was winning going away due to his inability to have Bush admit early in the campaign that he had once been arrested for drunk driving.
    –Donald R. McClarey

    The Bush DUI arrest story came out in the press during the early part of 2000 during the primaries. It was concerning to some people (mostly McCain supporters) but didn’t derail the Bush campaign for the GOP nomination. Follow up stories mentioned more about Bush’s past drinking and that it had imperiled his marriage before he gave up alcohol completely. The story then died.

    In the fall campaign season, the Establishment Media resurrected the DUI arrest story at the behest of Gore operatives and misleadingly played it up as if it were an entirely new and unheard of revelation. Bush partisans considered that episode to be an instance of the Establishment Media (NYT and alphabet networks, I’m looking at you) shamelessly taking sides with the left-liberal team on the political playing field. Of course, now the track record of the Establishment Media playing hard for its favorite candidate is well established (ask Hillary Clinton’s 2008 supporters) but in 2000 accusations that Big Media played dirty pool weren’t taken seriously by The Serious People – that was considered Rush Limbaugh crazy talk – so the media was able to blindside the Rove’s Bush campaign operation late in the fall campaign.

  • “Karen Hughes, Bush’s spokeswomen said the 54-year-old Texas governor, who has been open about his past drinking problems, had not publicly disclosed the arrest because not even his 18-year-old twin daughters were aware of it. He has said he gave up drinking the day after his 40th birthday.”

    http://articles.cnn.com/2000-11-02/politics/bush.dui_1_arrest-from-news-reports-george-w-bush-kennebunkport-police?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

That Inconvenient First Amendment

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, and son of Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one of President Reagan’s less wise judicial appointments, writing in Slate thinks that perhaps it is time that Americans stop making a fetish of freedom of speech as embodied in the First Amendment.  Christopher Johnson, a Protestant who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, gives Posner a fisking to remember:

University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner thinks that this country really needs to dial down its obsession with free speech:

The universal response in the United States to the uproar over the anti-Muslim video is that the Muslim world will just have to get used to freedom of expression. President Obama said so himself in a speech at the United Nations today, which included both a strong defense of the First Amendment and (“in the alternative,” as lawyers say) and a plea that the United States is helpless anyway when it comes to controlling information. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them. Muslims need to grow a thick skin, the thinking goes, as believers in the West have done over the centuries. Perhaps they will even learn what it means to live in a free society, and adopt something like the First Amendment in their own countries.

Maybe that’s right.  But actually, America needs to get with the international program.

But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point.

Look at it this way.  At least the trains will run on time and everyone will be able to read the “No Food Today” signs.  Posner points out that it was the left which first turned the First Amendment into an weapon.

The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers. Conservatives objected that these rulings helped America’s enemies while undermining public order and morality at home, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

Shogi, the Japanese version of chess, has a unique characteristic.  Because of the way the pieces are shaped, no piece is ever completely out of the game.  Any of your pieces that I happen to take can be turned around and employed by my army.

A totem that is sacred to one religion can become an object of devotion in another, even as the two theologies vest it with different meanings. That is what happened with the First Amendment. In the last few decades, conservatives have discovered in its uncompromising text— “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”—support for their own causes. These include unregulated campaign speech, unregulated commercial speech, and limited government. Most of all, conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.

Posner wants Americans to remember two things.  The First Amendment is strictly an American idea whose inspiration is not shared by anybody else in the world and which cannot force people stop thinking bad thoughts.

We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal; they emerged contingently from our own political history, a set of cobbled-together compromises among political and ideological factions responding to localized events. As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally. Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good. It contributes to the “marketplace of ideas,” as though we would seriously admit that Nazis or terrorist fanatics might turn out to be right after all. Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, “like vampires … die in the sunlight” rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society.

In the past, American “values” have made this country look bad to the rest of the world.

Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism. During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy establishment urged civil rights reform in order to counter Soviet propagandists’ gleeful reports that Americans fire-hosed black protesters and state police arrested African diplomats who violated Jim Crow laws. Rather than tell the rest of the world to respect states’ rights—an ideal as sacred in its day as free speech is now—the national government assured foreigners that it sought to correct a serious but deeply entrenched problem. It is useful if discomfiting to consider that many people around the world may see America’s official indifference to Muslim (or any religious) sensibilities as similar to its indifference to racial discrimination before the civil rights era.

It says in another part of the First Amendment that the US government is supposed to be indifferent to the sensibilities of all religions.  That’s what we were always told whenever some governmental entity allowed the display of the Cross or the Ten Commandments anyway.  So it’s unclear why the United States government should care one way or the other about the feelings of Muslims.

But according to Eric Posner, they apparently should care deeply whenever Islamic feelings are hurt.  Not only that, this American law professor thinks that the fact that Washington was unable to legally force Google to take that film down is a scandal.

The final irony is that while the White House did no more than timidly plead with Google to check if the anti-Muslim video violates its policies (appeasement! shout the critics), Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law. This may have been a sensible middle ground, or perhaps Google should have done more. What is peculiar it that while reasonable people can disagree about whether a government should be able to curtail speech in order to safeguard its relations with foreign countries, the Google compromise is not one that the U.S. government could have directed. That’s because the First Amendment protects verbal attacks on groups as well as speech that causes violence (except direct incitement: the old cry of “Fire!” in a crowded theater). And so combining the liberal view that government should not interfere with political discourse, and the conservative view that government should not interfere with commerce, we end up with the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech whatsoever. Instead, only the profit-maximizing interests of a private American corporation can. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad.

I’ve got a better idea, Professor.  Try explaining to the protestors in Cairo and Islamabad that ANYTHING that happens inside this country is none of their damned business.

The mendacity and dishonesty of this piece is easily ascertained by asking yourself a simple question.  If some form of artistic expression had insulted Jesus or villified Christianity, would Posner still have written it?

If some museum displays an egregiously blasphemous painting of Jesus or Mary, if a particularly blasphemous movie was made, if another TV show or play debuted which ridiculed Christians or if Bill Maher opened his pie hole, would Posner think it regrettable that the US government was unable to legally prevent these things from happening?

Of course  he wouldn’t.  The question wouldn’t even come up.  And the reason why the question wouldn’t come up is simple.  Christians don’t kill people and destroy property when they are insulted and villified or their Lord is blasphemed.

A faculty sinecure at the University of Chicago Law School would seem to suggest a certain level of intelligence.  So it’s hard for me to figure out why Eric Posner thinks that restricting American rights simply to avoid offending Muslims is a good idea.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to That Inconvenient First Amendment

  • The First Amendment is protected by the Second. Obama and the Democrats would do well to remember that. Oh wait – they do know that, hence their initiatives against firearm ownership. So only perverts will have freedom of speech so that they can dispense their pornography and only criminals will own guns with which to protect their activities. This is so Orwellian!

  • We might repair to the thought of Alvin Gouldner and Thomas Sowell to better understand what is meant by ‘liberal’ social thought at this point and then look at the behavior of the judiciary, the professoriate, and the nexus between them as represented in this chap Posner. Here is the hypothesis: these fellows conceive of the rest of society as being under their tutelage, and you no more have a right of free speech than you do in daddy Posner’s courtroom or junior Posner’s classroom. It is the job of the rest of us to remind Prof. Posner’s that we have all been out of school for a while even if you never left, buddy.

  • The answer to savagery is not slavery. It’s confronting savagery.

    Anyhow, the embassy massacre wasn’t caused by a YouTube video. That is propaganda. It was about Obama’s failed foreign and security policies.

    “Too many of the people at the top of our society are cowards.”

    Minor edit: Your self-anointed elites are unprincipled cowards and traitors.

  • A++, Art.

    August 13, 2012: George Steele Gordon:

    “Intellectuals, especially in the social sciences, have a nasty habit of thinking that, ‘This is the way the world should be, therefore this is the way the world can be.’

    “Sometimes the mind just boggles.

    “The Atlantic has an article this month with the title ‘Americans Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don’t Realize It).’ I am always curious when intellectuals announce that the people (who in the American constitutional system serve as the sovereign power) don’t know what’s good for them (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) or don’t even know what they want.

    “Implicit in all of these revelations, of course, is the firmest, if never directly expressed, belief of the Left: That the average person is too stupid to run his own life, let alone make public policy decisions. Those few, those happy few, that band of liberal intellectuals, must do that for them.”

  • If I followed this right, Posner is saying that a US move to take control of international communications systems would be welcomed by the rest of the world. That’s what he’s actually saying. I don’t know how to refute something that transparently idiotic. I mean, all First Amendment issues to the side, and questions of universal rights just tossed out the window, what does he think would happen if the US government announced that from now on, everything on the internet would have to be cleared through them?

    Maybe Posner anticipates that each country would have its own internet censorship board. But a heck of a lot of the internet is stored on US servers and bounced of US satellites. Thanks to cloud computing, it is impossible to say what information isn’t housed in the US. So Posner is essentially recommending an international cartel on information run out of Washington DC, and he thinks that that will relieve anti-US sentiment.

Stupid Meme: Libertarianism & “Gay Marriage”

Wednesday, September 26, AD 2012

One of the more annoying memes I am often confronted with is the automatic assumption that libertarians must be for “gay marriage.”I can understand why some people automatically assume such things in good faith, but I can also tell when the leftist media is attempting to exploit an apparent rift between libertarians and conservatives on the right. Whenever I read somewhere that there may be tension between different wings of the American right on an issue such as “gay marriage”, it is almost never a conservative or a libertarian writing it.

Is it consistent with libertarianism to be an uncritical and loud advocate of “gay marriage”? In my view, the answer is no. In fact, it is more consistent with libertarianism, at least in the current political climate and given the way the issue is currently framed, to be opposed to the “marriage equality” movement. The word “equality” ought to be the first indication to a libertarian that something may be amiss, since egalitarian movements are often statist, sometimes outright totalitarian movements that seek to achieve an ideal of equality by sheer force. Communism is the most obvious example, but what feminist and certain racial groups have achieved on college campuses is only a microcosm of what they would like to see in society at large: free speech utterly silenced, opposing views ostracized, careers denied or ruined over the utterance of a heterodox opinion (just view the archives of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for countless examples). To some extent this already does happen in society at large, but only selectively – for now.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Stupid Meme: Libertarianism & “Gay Marriage”

  • Thank you for your post. Re-define. To call something that isn’t is. What will be the next grab for power. Pedophiles are “minor attracted people”. Life site .com posted a disturbing piece coming out of Germany regarding the move to lower children’s consent requirements, (age). Placing more children in harms way of the M.A.P.
    When will this stop? It seems to me as God is pushed out of the public square, the old foe slithers in. “What’s foul is fair…and what’s fair is foul.” Old Bill saw it coming.

  • Mother and Father becomes Parent A and Parent B.

    only a bureaucratic detail. only. mmhmm

  • Pingback: Dating Subsidiarity Archbishop John Myers Same-Sex Marriage | Big Pulpit
  • Thank you, Bonchamps, for a discerning essay. I am in close agreement with much of what you’ve written here, especially in the third and fourth paragraphs.

    Among some self-identified libertarians in the blogosphere, “the opinion that the state ought to have nothing to say at all about marriage” has great initial appeal. But who was it who said that for every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong? And wrong it is; a libertarian should be quick to see that upon considering what individuals have to say about marriage.

    Eventually people will laugh at attempts by judges and legislators to make same-sex sham marriages equivalent to real marriages just as we laugh at stories of attempts to legislate pi = 3.

  • The great 19th century Catholic historian, Lord Acton, pointed out on many occasions that the passion for civic equality and the hatred of noble and clerical privilege is usually accompanied by a tolerance of despotism, whether the absolutism of a Napoléon (whose regime was the consummation of the Revolution, not its reversal) or the tyranny of the majority.

    The egalitarian likes strong government, believing, as Acton notes, “Government must not be arbitrary, but it must be powerful enough to repress arbitrary action in others. If the supreme power is needlessly limited, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress. Its supremacy will bear no check.” Hence, “The modern theory… which has swept away every authority except that of the State, and has made the sovereign power irresistible by multiplying those who share it.”

  • I think you are neglecting two aspects of this:

    1. Civil marriage is a set of voluntarily assumed obligations. It is also an official delineation of social boundaries as are the property deeds in the county clerk’s office or copyrights registered at the Library of Congress. That delineation guides the resolution of disputes that inevitably arise in a society between private parties. The default mode of libertarian social thought is to conceive of a sharp delineation of state and society in which the latter is put upon by blunderbusses employed in the former. This sort of discourse is found in the writings of people who are critics of license (see William L. Anderson and Joseph Sobran) as those who are celebrants of it. In this mode of thought, the act of civil marriage is reducible to the issuance of a license and the refusal to do so is an unacceptable imposition on the autonomous will of Adam and Steve. That is an adolescent way of looking at the world, but what do you expect?

    2. Advocacy of these stupid burlesques is now a social and cultural marker in certain age cohorts. You do not really believe Reason‘s constituency is composed of people who do not care if they are confounded with evangelicals, do you?

  • With the moving words:

    “Champions of individual liberty should stand on the side of private property rights and religious liberty, and not on the side of those who are quite obviously attempting to use the coercive power of the state to impose their moral vision on the rest of America.”

    You have managed to more eloquently express the libertarian argument against anti-“gay marriage” legislation than you have defended yourself from what appears to be an entirely invented accusation that all libertarians must think and act the same.

    The larger issue of this meme – the concept that all libertarians must agree on gay marriage – well, you are correct there. You don’t have to support it.

    It will, however, make you less of a libertarian in the eyes of many. Take solace, however, as you can simply count it among the dozens of areas where the Christian faith and libertarian ideals do not meet eye-to-eye in the real world.

  • know what? I guess I am so naive as to think about this. If God would have wanted this kind of lifestyle there would be no proliferation of the human race. Without the act of procreation what is the point of anything? Everyway I turn I am learning of the homosexuals in my family. I love them as God loves them, but I cannot nor will I condone this behavior. No one will confront it in this Catholic family. Catholic mothers and fathers sisters and brothers. We are forced to, in every family gathering to put up with behavior that gags me. Married couples at these gatherings are not blatantly affectionate. It almost seems like an assult, or “dare ya” attitude. My grandchildren are exposed non stop. Please God. I don’t care what political direction you take this is, and will be disaster on our race. Without respect for marriage and procreation we are truly lost.

  • There are a number of problems with the essay that I take issue with. You brought up the situation with the photography studio in New Mexico as a warning about the dangers of marriage equality. Only problem is, New Mexico doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. The claim against the owner was one of discrimination in public services, not marriage. The state ruled that businesses that offer services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (amongst other criteria). Just a reminder, a photography studio is not a church, and people that are religious “chose” to be religious. They weren’t born that way. So for your position to be valid, one would have to argue that ANY choice people make in their lives can be used to justify discriminating against anyone that they want. In a secular society, this is unacceptable. Choosing to become religious does not give you a “free pass” to enforce your religious ideology on the rest of society. Don’t want to provide service to ALL of society? Then don’t open a business in the public sphere. Pretty simple philosophy, huh?

    I also find it interesting that you believe the word “equality” should bring up red flags. The reality is that most states and our government have gone out of their way to foster discriminatory laws aimed solely at gay Americans, making sure that gay people will never be considered equal under the law. (Which is what this is about. Not legal forms.) This is the antithesis of what America represents: freedom, liberty and equality all citizens. Religion cannot be allow to override those ideals. In a secular society, one should ask themselves why our government is enforcing an obvious religious ideology on its own citizens without a rational “legal” basis. Our government shouldn’t be promoting ANY type of religious ideology. When Congress passed the extremely unconstitutional DOMA law, their “rational basis” was that DOMA will help ensure that straight couples will procreate responsibly. Perhaps you can explain how preventing gay couples from getting married will help straight couples be more responsible when having sex? Are the gay couples going to provide condoms to all those straight couples? Are straight couples going to get married in greater numbers because they know that gay couples can’t get married? By any stretch of the imagination, the rationale behind DOMA was drenched in anti-gay animus (based on religious beliefs) and nothing else. These people simply didn’t want to treat gay people as equal members of society. Their position is fundamentally wrong and inherently immoral.

    By the way, the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does. Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal. Slavery ring a bell? How about the subordination of women? Bans on interracial marriage? People justified all sorts of bigotry throughout our history… and used the Bible to support their position. Enforcing your religious beliefs into our laws pushes us one step closer to becoming a Christian theocracy. Our Founding Fathers escaped religious tyranny. Our society cannot allow that to ever happen here.

  • I’ve pointed this out to the Libertarians on Ricochet who push for homosexual marriage. Their response is the same as about abortion– they make excuses that the thing consistent with their stated philosophy gives the government too much power, and then promote expanding that power, on the stated theory that if anybody can do it, EVERYONE should be able to do it.

    Then, if you pay attention to what college PotLibertarians do and point it out as an example of Libertarianism, they respond it’s inconsistent with their theory– and when you point out that their stance on killing humans up to a set stage of development is also inconsistent, or forcing others to support the lifestyle choice of two adults, you’re suddenly “just being nasty.”

    Can’t win. Either you pay attention to the theory of Libertarianism but aren’t allowed to call them on inconsistencies like promoting expanding gov’t power for their pet views, or you pay attention to what MOST Libertarians one meets think, and you’re accused of lying. For noticing that Ronulans and Liberaltarians (PotLibertarians that somehow always manage to vote straight Dem tickets, and love their college freebies) exist in real life. *headdesk*

  • What is far more disturbing to me, and most moral conservatives, is that libertarians do not support morality. At all. Libertine freedom is the enemy of morality- it is the right to sin. Real moral conservatives, at least Catholic ones, are authoritarian monarchists: They support the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the rule of his Vicar the Pope in all matters of faith and morals. Morality for moral conservatives IS objective; personal likes and dislikes do not change what is right and wrong the way it does for libertarians.

    THAT is why you see people thinking libertarians will support gay marriage, the way libertarians support the right of women to choose abortion, and the right of people to destroy their own lives and the lives of their families with drugs- because at the base, the false liberty of the right to sin is the cause.

  • Igel,

    “You have managed to more eloquently express the libertarian argument against anti-”gay marriage” legislation than you have defended yourself from what appears to be an entirely invented accusation that all libertarians must think and act the same.”

    Entirely invented? Gee thanks. I guess you’ve never read… anything at all. Really? You’ve never come across the standard line, usually from some left of center pundit, that conservatives and libertarians are necessarily divided on the issue of gay marriage? Pundits and commentators make broad and stupid generalizations all the time, especially when it serves their purposes. In this case, the purpose is to deepen the rifts on the right.

    What you call “anti-gay marriage legislation” is NOT an attempt to use the coercive authority of the state to impose a moral vision on America. People who think it is simply have not thought the issue through, and are reacting with pure emotion and irrationality. It is a response to the aggressive and 100% statist “marriage equality” movement. A ban on so-called “gay marriage” doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s legitimate individual rights (is there a natural right, now, to have your romantic preference recognized by the state as a “marriage”? When did this happen?)

    The push FOR “gay marriage”, on the other hand, is an attempt to force private property owners and government institutions to recognize a lifestyle choice as morally valid.

    A libertarian who isn’t opposed to that is either an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the foundations of his own philosophy, or a total fraud who ought to be cast into political outer darkness.

  • Fox,

    I guess I came to my quasi-libertarianism (I hesitate to identify fully with any label other than “Catholic”) through Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Judge Napolitano (a trad Catholic like me) and the Austrian school, which offers clear moral reasoning on every issue, even if I don’t agree with it 100% of the time. Of course this is a subset of a broader school of thought. Of course there are other factions within libertarianism. But the kind of people you describe sound like brain-dead fools.

    Ted,

    I don’t think this statement:

    “What is far more disturbing to me, and most moral conservatives, is that libertarians do not support morality.”

    Is fair at all. All of the names I mentioned above are extremely supportive of morality, and are in fact among the most morally conscious thinkers I’ve ever read.

    Of course libertarianism proposes, basically, that individuals ought to have the right to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe upon the basic rights of another person. But then you have Paul, Napolitano, and other very high profile libertarians who argue forcefully that abortion does exactly that, and so does this “marriage equality” movement. Abortion robs a human being of their right to life, and so-called “marriage equality” robs Christians and other individuals who are morally opposed to participating in “gay marriages” of their religious liberty and their private property rights.

    It is absolutely shocking to me that the average libertarian doesn’t see this.

  • Of course this is a subset of a broader school of thought. Of course there are other factions within libertarianism. But the kind of people you describe sound like brain-dead fools.

    They’re usually in college. Mentally, if not still physically. That’d make at very least the fools part mostly redundant…..

    To be more fair, I think they’re usually male liberals who got burnt or at least noticed the damage caused by extreme feminism, and so react by being exactly the opposite…but still on left-wing foundations. Part of why it usually looks like conservatism built by liberals.
    If you don’t have a foundation, you MIGHT be able to build some things; say, anti-abortion, anti-slavery, anti-theft, everything has to be a freely entered agreement. Which causes issues when folks actually do what they desire, and a third party becomes involved involuntarily, especially if their involvement puts a demand on the initial folks involved.

    Being pro-abortion and denouncement of forced child support as exploitation of the guy who willingly had sex in the first place is against the stated principles, but it’s very emotionally tempting if you don’t have a good bedrock.

  • David in Houston,

    Thanks for your extensive comments. I will address what I think are the most relevant parts.

    “The state ruled that businesses that offer services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (amongst other criteria).”

    The business didn’t discriminate “on the basis of sexual orientation.” The test of such discrimination would be whether the business refused service to a homosexual individual because they were homosexual. That is manifestly not what happened; rather, the business morally objected to participating in a “gay marriage”, a voluntarily chosen activity. There is a world of difference between these two things.

    “So for your position to be valid, one would have to argue that ANY choice people make in their lives can be used to justify discriminating against anyone that they want. ”

    That’s more or less exactly what I believe. I believe it because of a thing called private property rights, as well as freedom of association. I believe these rights are fundamental to a free society, especially when there are a multitude of alternatives available on the free market.

    It is not the job of the state to force everyone to like each other and serve each other. It is the job of the state to protect natural rights.

    “In a secular society, this is unacceptable. Choosing to become religious does not give you a “free pass” to enforce your religious ideology on the rest of society. Don’t want to provide service to ALL of society? Then don’t open a business in the public sphere. Pretty simple philosophy, huh?”

    It’s simple, but it is also absurd. It is absurd to suggest that people with religious convictions don’t have individual rights to free exercise in their capacity as private property owners (such a notion would have been absurd to the founders as well), it is absurd to suggest that refusing service is equivalent to “enforc(ing) religious ideology on the rest of society” when the market provides many alternatives, and it is absurd to suggest that people with religious views ought to be denied freedom of association by being effectively barred from establishing religiously-oriented business.

    No one is forced to hire or shop at establishments with particular views. But freedom works both ways – no ought to be forced to serve people who are asking them to participate in or facilitate events they find morally repugnant. You shouldn’t have the right to force Christians to photograph Satanic rituals, or Jews to cater Nazi banquets, or for that matter, secular atheists to renovate churches if they don’t want to. That’s also a very simply philosophy, one that doesn’t involve forcing people to act against their convictions and doesn’t deprive anyone of an essential good or service.

    “The reality is that most states and our government have gone out of their way to foster discriminatory laws aimed solely at gay Americans, making sure that gay people will never be considered equal under the law”

    Well, this is simply false. Gays are equal under the law, as individuals. There isn’t a single right that straight people have that gays do not have. Gays can even legally marry – someone of the opposite sex, that is. Gays can, through private contract, establish anyone they choose as legal and medical power of attorney, inheritor of their estate, co-owner of their property, joint bank accounts, and so on and so forth. All they lack, and what they are not entitled to by nature or by law, is the privilege of presumption that married men and women have with regards to these legal matters. There is absolutely no injustice here.

    “In a secular society, one should ask themselves why our government is enforcing an obvious religious ideology on its own citizens without a rational “legal” basis.”

    There is a rational, secular basis for supporting traditional marriage and opposing homosexual marriage. That you’ve never come across it or, as I suspect, even looked for it, doesn’t mean a thing. But that isn’t the issue here. I am not asking the government to enforce a religious ideology, but rather to respect the rights of individuals to free exercise of religion, free speech, and private property.

    ” When Congress passed the extremely unconstitutional DOMA law, their “rational basis” was that DOMA will help ensure that straight couples will procreate responsibly. ”

    I’m not a fan of that rationale. But it is unnecessary. The key provision of DOMA is that no state be forced to recognize the validity of a “gay marriage” from a state that legally recognizes it. That is a perfectly just and fair provision that respects the sovereign rights of individual states. It does not prevent the individual states from recognizing “gay marriage” either, as we have seen. This is another illegitimate complaint.

    “By the way, the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does.”

    Have you read the 10th amendment?

    “Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal.”

    I agree. Sometimes, however, the majority is right. This time, they are. But in any case, it is not primarily about what the majority thinks, though I do think that is important. This is about the defense of natural individual rights to freedom of speech, religion, and private property.

    As for your comparisons to slavery and the like, the Bible was also (quite obviously, for anyone who knows their history) used by those fighting against slavery. No one complained about that as an “enforcement of religious beliefs” on the rest of the country, just like no one complains when left-wing Christians use religion to justify left-wing policies. No, it is only the socially conservative right who wants to impose religious values, only the socially conservative right who can find no “rational justification” for their policy preferences. The religious left, on the other hand, always gets a free pass.

    Finally, “marriage”, the decision to live one’s life with another person, is a CHOICE. It is not an inherited trait like skin color. Governments and individuals have a moral obligation to treat all individuals equally. They do not have a moral obligation to treat all moral choices as equally valid. If you can’t comprehend the difference, then I’m afraid we will always be enemies.

  • David in Houston said “ the public doesn’t have the final say when it comes to passing laws, the Constitution does. Just because a majority of people vote for something (the express wishes of the voters) does not make them right, or their decision just or legal.”

    But, of course, the public always have the final say; they can always amend or abolish any laws, including the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said, “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please…”

    Law is the expression of the general will, of the living, not the dead. History may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control.

  • This is an excellent post. Thanks, Bonchamps. I wish I had the intellect to contribute something. But I am satisfied to learn where I can’t contribute.

  • Many libertarians recognize a set of principles or preexisting order that must exist to support liberty. Many others, however, are libertines who adopt libertarianism in an effort to confuse their conscience with their constantly changing, contradicting intellectual-sounding garble to support their temporal whims.

  • Also, most ‘gay marriage’ statutes have nothing to do with what the state does. Many states, before they ever introduced same-sex civil ‘unions’ or ‘marriages’, had reconciled all state-level administrative powers to be neutral to all couples. However, this was deemed insufficient. Hence, states began imposing requirements on the private organizations they regulated.
    Now some states are suing the federal government to force the federal government to accept gay marriage. Already there’s proposals to force other states accept the same sex ‘marriages’ from other states. Sooner or later, and in some small cases already relating to property and adjacent ministries, every private organization will be forced to accept and facilitate these ‘marriages’.

    It’s not an coincidence why some of the biggest heterosexual supporters of same sex marriage are the statists. They envision new powers to regulate speech, regulate custody, regulate transhumanist dreams, attack churches, harm families and then ‘help’ those impacted families. It’s not about people, it’s about the new weapons they can produce.

  • My personal position on the photographer is that I wouldn’t do business with someone that doesn’t want my business. That being said, personal feelings about someone (believing that they are immoral) is not a rational basis to discriminate against them. By the way, I can guarantee that the photographer has provided work for “immoral” straight people in the past. Especially if they’ve ever worked with people like Newt Gingrich, or other adulterers, or gamblers, or alcoholics, or any other so-called sin you can come up with. I sincerely doubt that the photographer questioned other clients to determine if they were worthy of their services. I find it more than a little hypocritical that the only criteria that Christians have for immorality (to use for the basis for discrimination) is someone’s sexual orientation — oddly enough, that’s the ONLY so-called sin that they’ll never have. Must be a coincidence, right? That’s basically the same assessment that the courts in New Mexico found. Simply choosing to become religious doesn’t give you authority to disregard laws that protect the treatment of other citizens. Did you ever notice that the only group of people that are collectively discriminating against another group of people are Christians, and not the other way around. Yet it’s the Christians that are somehow the victims in all of these stories. Funny how that works out. Yes, 80% of the populous are victims of the overwhelming power of the 3%. It truly boggles the mind.

    “Gays are equal under the law, as individuals. There isn’t a single right that straight people have that gays do not have. Gays can even legally marry – someone of the opposite sex, that is. Gays can, through private contract, establish anyone they choose as legal and medical power of attorney, inheritor of their estate, co-owner of their property, joint bank accounts, and so on and so forth. All they lack, and what they are not entitled to by nature or by law, is the privilege of presumption that married men and women have with regards to these legal matters. There is absolutely no injustice here.”

    Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. They can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious. Which is what, over three-quarters of the population? — If you happen to have offspring, I seriously doubt that you’d want them to marry a gay person. I’d think you want them to marry someone that they are physically attracted to, someone that they love and want to build a life with, and someone that also finds them sexually and physically attractive. That isn’t possible if the other person is gay, and vice versa. Common sense, right? It’s also a laughable argument: “I’d rather have that gay guy marry my daughter instead of that man he’s been in a relationship for 10 years.” Yeah, let’s destroy two lives just to make sure that gay people can’t legally join together. Seriously? — As for private contracts. There is no logical reason why gay couples should have to jump through legal hoops and spent time and money on something that is automatically granted to straight couples. Immoral straight couples don’t have to hire an attorney to protect their relationships, neither should so-called immoral gay couples.

    “There is a rational, secular basis for supporting traditional marriage and opposing homosexual marriage. That you’ve never come across it or, as I suspect, even looked for it, doesn’t mean a thing.”

    No. Actually there isn’t a rational secular basis to deny gay Americans the right to create a legal kinship (secular marriage) with each other. That is why conservatives want to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it. Because they know that if they don’t, our constitution will support it. If there were a rational basis, we would have definitely heard it during the Prop. 8 trial. Instead, we got inane slippery slope arguments about the threat to “traditional” marriage, and how theoretical children need a mommy and daddy — disregarding the fact that procreation has never been a requirement to getting married. I also didn’t read it in the above essay, which complains that if gay people can marry, then religious people will have a harder time discriminating against them. When put in that context (You won’t tolerate my intolerance), your position is insupportable.

    “Finally, “marriage”, the decision to live one’s life with another person, is a CHOICE. It is not an inherited trait like skin color. Governments and individuals have a moral obligation to treat all individuals equally. They do not have a moral obligation to treat all moral choices as equally valid. If you can’t comprehend the difference, then I’m afraid we will always be enemies.”

    Your position is that homosexuality is immoral, and I’m guessing you also believe it’s a choice. Sorry to say, wrong on both counts. All because you believe a 2,000 year old book says so. Sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything — in a theocratic country, perhaps. But not here. In fact, your entire belief system is built on nothing but faith. Which again means there is no proof of that assertion; and unless our government can prove that all gay people are inherently immoral and a threat to society, they have no right to discriminate against them as a group. As I said before, we do not disenfranchise straight citizens that are immoral. Straight people that have cheated on their spouses still have all of their civil rights, including the right to get divorced and remarried as many times as they want. If you can’t comprehend the obvious hypocrisy going on here, then I agree, I’m afraid we will always be enemies. Liberty and freedom for ALL Americans will always win in the end. The younger generation “comprehends” that (and literally cannot understand why gay couples can’t get married), and irrational animus directed at gay people will be as unacceptable as racism and sexism.

  • David,

    “That being said, personal feelings about someone (believing that they are immoral) is not a rational basis to discriminate against them.”

    Personal feelings can be entirely aligned with objective reasons, so your statement is fallacious.

    More importantly, it is irrelevant. The 1st and 5th amendments secure the rights of religion, speech and property, and that security does not depend in the least upon whether or not a person exercising them meets some criteria of “rationality.” The essence of a free society is that I don’t have to convince you that my beliefs meet your standard of rationality – rather, you must tolerate beliefs you personally feel to be irrational as long as they infringe upon no legitimate right of yours. Clearly these basic lessons of American law, politics and culture are utterly lost on you, which is why liberty is dying a slow death in this country.

    “By the way, I can guarantee that the photographer has provided work for “immoral” straight people in the past. ”

    This, like many of your subsequent statements, is nothing but pure speculation presented as if it were indisputable fact – and is therefore pure rubbish.

    Even if you were correct, however, it wouldn’t matter. How a person exercises their religious beliefs, provided no one’s legitimate rights are violated, is not the business of the state. If a person is inconsistent in their application of morality, that is their own personal issue, and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they have the legal right to refuse to participate in events they deem morally objectionable. The right to refuse service isn’t rooted in intellectual consistency, but rather in the natural, individual and inalienable right to private property and the civil rights of free speech and free exercise.

    “I find it more than a little hypocritical that the only criteria that Christians have for immorality (to use for the basis for discrimination) is someone’s sexual orientation”

    This is completely untrue. I don’t know what would possess you to even assert such a thing. Homosexuality is the issue because homosexuality is what is being shoved down our throats by radical activists. But there are plenty of Christians who object to the whole gamut of immoral and anti-social behavior, and it is really quite foolish of you to suggest otherwise. Really, think before you write.

    “Yet it’s the Christians that are somehow the victims in all of these stories.”

    Yes, it is Christians who are being harassed, sued, and threatened by radical homosexual activists. There is a documented history of this abuse in the U.S. and in other countries. This is the ugly reality you are completely ignoring.

    “Yes, 80% of the populous are victims of the overwhelming power of the 3%. It truly boggles the mind.”

    It boggles the mind how someone can play so fast and loose with the facts. First of all, far fewer than 80% of American Christians actually take their stated beliefs seriously. Secondly, the gay population is estimated to be 10%, not 3%. Third, some of the most aggressive “gay rights” advocates are straight, secular, left-wing activists, especially the Hollywood types. Given that opinion polls show the nation evenly split on the issue, about 50-50, I’d say that more accurately represents the reality.

    But while the Christians have maybe a few legal defense organizations who are committed to fighting for their rights, homosexuals have the sympathy of the entire media establishment and significant sections of the political and corporate worlds as well (for every Chick-fil-A there are a dozen Targets, Oreos, Starbucks, NBCs, and so on). Just turn on a television, for the love of all that is holy – there is an endless parade of television shows praising and glamorizing the gay lifestyle, and an endless stream of anti-Christian hate, mockery, and vilification. Only the ignorant or the dishonest could possibly say otherwise. You live in a left-wing bubble.

    “Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. ”

    I believe in equal protection under the law for individuals. However, I also believe in freedom of association and private property rights. A balance must be struck, I will grant. But that means both sides meeting in the middle on this question – not one side steamrolling over the other by judicial fiat.

    “hey can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious.”

    Well, you’ve misrepresented my views. I stated quite clearly that the discrimination in question had nothing to do with sexual orientation, but rather with an unwillingness to participate in a freely-chosen public event that is morally objectionable. You are pathologically incapable of understanding the difference between these two things. Refusing service to an individual because of some characteristic they possess is not the same as refusing to participate in an event. You’re quite deluded if you think they are the same, an enemy of liberty, and therefore my enemy.

    “That isn’t possible if the other person is gay, and vice versa. Common sense, right?”

    Well, you’re wrong actually. It is entirely possible. It has happened throughout all of recorded history. It leads to difficulties, yes, but in societies in which family and children are duties, and not accessories, it is far easier to accomplish. Homosexuality was rampant among the Greeks in the ancient world, but so was the notion of familial duty. Homosexuality has existed in many cultures but the concept of “gay marriage” has only existed in these very recent times. That isn’t a coincidence.

    Having a sexual orientation does not make it physically impossible to perform sex acts with the sex you aren’t oriented towards. There are few men in the prison system who would ever identify as homosexuals, but there are many who routinely engage in sodomy and other sex acts with other men. The dominant males think of the more submissive males as females. The same thing happens in the other direction – there are homosexual men and women who have, can, and do engage in lifelong sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex.

    But none of this is relevant, absolutely none of it, to the issues I am concerned with.

    “There is no logical reason why gay couples should have to jump through legal hoops and spent time and money on something that is automatically granted to straight couples.”

    And it is absurd to uproot society, dramatically transform the law, and infringe upon the rights of millions of people so that a few legal hoops can be avoided. That isn’t rational or moral. Traditional marriage between one man and one woman is objectively good for society. It deserves pride of place, it deserves prestige, and all other social arrangements ought to be subordinate to it. You can call me a bigot all day long if you like for holding that position. See if I care. I think married men and women are as superior to gay couples as they are to unmarried hetero couples, to polygamists, to voluntary single parents – this is not about singling out homosexuality but rather retaining the justly deserved privileged status of traditional marriage. I’m not a radical egalitarian, I have no moral obligation to become one, and I will die to defend my right not to be one.

    “Actually there isn’t a rational secular basis to deny gay Americans the right to create a legal kinship (secular marriage) with each other. ”

    But that isn’t being denied. You can’t seriously posit the extra filing of forms to be the equivalent of a denial of “legal kinship.” It’s all right there – property, medical, legal, financial, and so on. Any two people can establish these legal relationships and no one objects to it.

    We object to the attempt to MORALLY place them on the same level as traditional marriage by hijacking the word “marriage” to describe them and forcing private property owners to render services to people they don’t consider to be married as if they were actually married.

    We object to the attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce a moral equivalence in the minds of the people between so-called “gay marriage” and traditional marriage.

    I just wonder if you are honest and/or intelligent enough to appreciate the distinction between these two very different things. If in the end you are just sour because I won’t recognize “gay marriage” as morally legitimate, then tough s*** – we live in a free society and you just have to deal with it. But I will make clear that I don’t object to any two individuals establishing a legal relationship that for all intents and purposes adds up to the state’s definition of a “marriage.” I will never call it marriage, and I will go to prison rather than treat a gay couple as if they were legitimately married, but I don’t object to the legal recognition of their private contracts.

    “I also didn’t read it in the above essay, which complains that if gay people can marry, then religious people will have a harder time discriminating against them. When put in that context (You won’t tolerate my intolerance), your position is insupportable.”

    No, it is completely supportable by over two centuries of American jurisprudence, the political philosophy of the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, basic moral philosophy and common sense. I have a right to be intolerant, provided I am not violating anyone’s legitimate rights. But it isn’t even about intolerance. I can and do tolerate homosexuality, and even the existence of homosexual couples who like to pretend that they are “married.” What I refuse to do, and what any serious Christian refuses to do, is engage in, facilitate, participate in any way in what we believe to be blatantly immoral choices. We have this right under the 1st amendment. That is the “support” for my argument, or at least the beginning of it.

    “Your position is that homosexuality is immoral, and I’m guessing you also believe it’s a choice. ”

    This is part of your problem, David. Your guessing, your assuming. You think you know everything and that you have everyone figured out, and this arrogance makes your arguments absurd.

    I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I don’t believe people are born gay either. I believe it is a psychological condition brought on by early childhood problems. I don’t believe it can be reversed or “cured”, but I do believe it is possible for a homosexual to reject the openly gay lifestyle, as it has been done throughout history.

    Homosexual acts are sinful, of course, as are many sexual acts that take place between heterosexuals. These are always choices. So, for that matter, is the decision to live as if you are married. This is quite clearly and obviously a choice. When one chooses to live as if they are married to a person of the same sex, it is blatantly immoral – and it is immoral for you or the state to attempt to force me to recognize it as something moral.

    “All because you believe a 2,000 year old book says so.”

    How far does this patronizing attitude typically get you in life? You don’t know me or what I believe. I have never once made an argument against “gay marriage” on the basis of Scripture (except to pro-gay Christians, but that’s a different matter). My primary argument is that “marriage equality” is a violent assault on basic American liberties. My secondary argument is that history and sociology clearly demonstrate the superiority of the traditional family to all other competing social arrangements.

    “As I said before, we do not disenfranchise straight citizens that are immoral.”

    What does “disenfranchise” mean to you? I don’t think I am suggesting any such thing.

    “The younger generation “comprehends” that (and literally cannot understand why gay couples can’t get married), and irrational animus directed at gay people will be as unacceptable as racism and sexism.”

    The younger generation is full of barely literate public school drones who couldn’t critically think their way out of a paper sack. It takes more than MTV platitudes and Obamaisms to understand the complicated intersection of moral, legal, and political issues underlying the “gay marriage” controversy. It is you who relies on the power of the unthinking, emotional mob to violently impose your views on others. Just look at how you make presumptions about me, how you have prejudged me and my beliefs. You’re the perfect stereotype of a lynch-mob lackey.

  • Gay people can still be fired in 29 states, simply because they are gay. They can also be refused housing on the same basis; and apparently (based on your beliefs) they can be discriminated against by anyone that happens to be religious.

    It is called ‘free association’, David. People are denied employment for all manner of reasons and denied credit and rental housing for failure to meet arbitrary metrics. They have no cause of action. In recent decades, civil liability has been manufactured which compels people to enter into contracts and other agreements they would rather not, for whatever reasons free people have. With regard to the black population (disproportionately poor, always obtrusive, and systemically abused by officialdom in 1964) there was a sort of justification for this. With sexual deviants, there is no such justification. The proliferation of ‘rights’ threatens liberty.

  • Bonchamps-
    the 10% figure was based on a highly flawed study; 3% seems to be more in line with less biased studies.
    The 10% figure is most often cited, though, especially when the activist wants to inflate his figures.

    Other than that, you’re doing great.

Household Incomes In Decline Under Obama; Democrats in Denial

Wednesday, September 26, AD 2012

 

Feeling a little bit poorer?   Well, a lot of our fellow Americans are.  Last month median household income dropped 1.1%, an ominous sign that the Obama Riches to Rags policies are continuing to have an impact:

In another sign that the economic recovery under President Obama is not producing gains for average Americans, median household incomes fell 1.1% in August to $50,678, according to a report released Tuesday by Sentier Research.

Since the economic recovery started in June 2009, household incomes are down 5.7%, the Sentier data show, and they are down more than 8% since Obama took office.

“Even though we are technically in an economic recovery, real median annual household income is having a difficult time maintaining its present level, much less recovering,” said Sentier co-founder and former Census Bureau official Gordon Green.

Earlier this month, the Census Bureau released its annual report showing that the number of people in poverty was nearly 3 million higher in 2011 than in 2009, an increase of 6%.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Household Incomes In Decline Under Obama; Democrats in Denial

  • In August, 79,000 Americans got new jobs while 185,000 Americans got new food stamps benefits.

    The US needs to recover from the economic recovery.

    The President’s and his czars’ policies (income redistribution, war on coal/electric generation, seizure of health care, Dodd-Frank/CFPB, etc. are hindering economic recovery) are responsible for this.

    The Great Depression lasted until 1940+. FDR was intent on changing the economic power structure not fostering economic recovery.

    PS: QEternity won’t work, either. The Bernank cannot create jobs or wealth. He only can create fiat (debt) currency. See Einstein’s definition of “insanity.”

  • I don’t watch the MSM, but my guess is that this is not getting much play from them. Correct?

  • Correct cmatt. It is just the type of statistic that Romney needs to ram home next week: we are getting poorer under Obama even when the economy is in a so-called recovery.

  • ” Romney needs to ….”

    Gee whiz the man has been running for President since 2006 but to judge from the frequency of those 3 words he must think he’s got to 2016. Maybe he feels it’s Bush’s fault. But I don’t want to be harsh. At least Romney doesn’t laugh about the lack of jobs the way his opponent does. And this story has had the positive effect that Dems no longer say the words “hamburger flipper jobs”. In fact McDonalds has become something of a hero to them.

Angel of the Trenches

Wednesday, September 26, AD 2012

Joao Baptista DeValles was born in 1879 in Saint Miquel in the Azores.  At the age of 2 his family moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts.  His first name anglicized to John, he quickly proved himself a brilliant student, eventually being fluent in six languages.  Ordained a priest in 1906 he served at Falls River at Espirito Santo Church, founding the first Portuguese language parochial school in the United States while he was there.  He later served at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in New Bedford and was pastor at Saint John the Baptist Church, also in New Bedford.

After the entry of the US into World War I, he joined the Army as a chaplain, serving with the 104th regiment, a Massachusetts National Guard outfit, part of the Yankee (26th) Division, made up of National Guard units from New England.  The Yankee Division arrived in France in September 1917, the second American division to arrive “Over There”.

The 104th was a hard fighting outfit, serving in all of the major campaigns of the American Expeditionary Force.  For heroic fighting at Bois Brule in April, 1918 the French government awarded the regiment a collective Croix de Guerre, an unprecedented honor for an American military unit.  There were quite a few very brave men in the 104th, and among the bravest of the brave was Chaplain DeValles.  For his heroism in rescuing wounded, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest decoration for valor in the United States Army.  Here is the text of the citation:

104th Infantry Regiment, 26th Division, A.E.F. Date of Action: April 10 – 13, 1918 Citation: The Distinguished Service Cross is presented to John B. De Valles, Chaplain, U.S. Army, for extraordinary heroism in action near Apremont, Toul sector, France, April 10 to 13, 1918. Chaplain De Valles repeatedly exposed himself to heavy artillery and machine-gun fire in order to assist in the removal of the wounded from exposed points in advance of the lines. He worked for long periods of time with stretcher bearers in carrying wounded men to safety. Chaplain De Valles previously rendered gallant service in the Chemin des Dames sector, March 11, 1918, by remaining with a group of wounded during a heavy enemy bombardment. General Orders No. No. 35, W.D., 1920

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Angel of the Trenches

  • Thank you for this, Donald. I probably would never had read about Chaplain De Valles otherwise.

  • He is unjustly obscure Spambot. A good recent look at him is in Joseph Persico’s 11th month, 11th day, 11th hour:

    http://www.amazon.com/Eleventh-Month-Day-Hour-Armistice/dp/0375508252

  • “John B. de Valles had been born in the Azores to Portuguese parents who had taken him to Massachusetts as a child. He had been ordained in 1906 and became a popular parish priest, first in Fall River and then in New Bedford. When America went to war, Father de Valles immediately joined the Chaplains’ Corps. His popularity transferred easily to the 104th. When a soldier found himself short before payday, the priest could be touched for a loan of a few francs—on one condition: he must promise not to use the money for what de Valles called “cohabitation.” His orderly kept a ledger in which the loans were recorded. But when payday came around, Father de Valles would tell him to tear out the page. The orderly was Connell Albertine, who looked upon the day the chaplain had chosen him as the luckiest of his young life.

    Albertine felt secure in the priest’s presence. The previous April, near Saint-Agnant, when Private Burns had been hung up on the wire in no-man’s-land, screaming in agony, Chaplain de Valles heaved himself out of the trench and began crawling toward the wounded man. The priest disentangled Burns from the wire, lifted him onto his back, and staggered to the trench as enemy machine-gun bullets tore into the ground around them.

    After bloody fighting at Commercy, de Valles had stood mutely watching a procession of carts haul the 104th’s dead from the field. Albertine heard Father de Valles curse through clenched teeth, “Kill them! Kill the bastards!” The priest later apologized to his orderly, but the words, he said, had tumbled out and felt right. The incident had bound Albertine more closely to the chaplain, making de Valles as humanly imperfect as his flock.

    Now, on this last day, the nightmare of raglike bodies, gas-seared lungs, and unholy shrieks from the wire, he believed, had to end.

    Colonel Cassius M. Dowell commanded another regiment of the 26th Division, the 103rd. That November 11, Dowell was in his dugout bent over a map, marking the point where his regiment could expect to end the war. At 9:45 a.m., his field phone rang. Colonel Duncan K. Major, the division’s chief of staff, was on the line informing him that the attack had been reinstated. Dowell was to send his men against German machine guns in a war that would end in a little over an hour. “Why?” Dowell asked. “The French compelled us to do it,” Major answered. The 26th was in fact under command of the French II Colonial Corps. Major had experienced his own disbelief when told that the canceled assault was now to go forward. He had checked with the operations chief of the French corps for confirmation. Major, his French imperfect, feared he had misunderstood. An American liaison officer serving with the French came on the line and informed Major that he had heard correctly. The assault was back on. This was the news that Major was now relaying to disbelieving regimental commanders of the 26th.

    Cassius Dowell, now in his sixteenth year in the army, was gruff, plainspoken, an officer who had risen from private to his present rank. He was not without compassion for his men, but was a soldier first. He too had learned unofficially from a friend on division staff that the armistice had been signed just after 5 a.m. He had not shared this information with his men “lest it might interfere with their advance during the attack that had been ordered for that day.” He had then received word that the assault, except for the artillery bombardment, had been called off. He could not, however, resist one last blow at the Hun. He warned that if any shells were left unfired at 11 a.m., he would court-martial the responsible battery commander.

    On learning that the attack had been fully reinstated, “I stood there a few seconds debating as to whether I should send my men forward, having told them that they would not have to go,” Dowell later recalled. “I expected my casualties to be very heavy.”

    Lieutenant Harry G. Rennagel, released from the hospital just the day before, rejoined his unit of the 26th Division to find his men laughing, joking, talking more loudly than they ever dared in the trenches. They were “waiting for the bell to ring,” they told him, signaling the end of the war. “When the orders came to go over the top,” he remembered, “we thought it was a joke.”

    Albertine watched Chaplain de Valles move through the trench, deathly pale, comforting the men. An Italian private from Boston’s North End asked the chaplain to bless him and kissed the cross hanging from t… ”

    http://www.amazon.com/Eleventh-Month-Day-Hour-Armistice/dp/product-description/073931517X

  • His bravery is exemplary! I can’t even imagine the fortitude it would take to continuously expose oneself to the horrors of battle on the behalf of others as he did. Thank you for sharing his story.

  • Thank you Bekah. I write about chaplains like Father DeValles so that we may never forget these Heroes of Christ.