Can the Private Sector Support What the Public Sector Claims To?

Monday, September 10, AD 2012

This is the first part in a three-part series.  It raises an issue that I have been thinking about for over three years, and I have finally nailed down some sources and drawn the whole argument together.  I will issue the next two parts over the course of the week.

 

The Problem

With the pending election there has been a resurgence of discussion about privatizing certain industries, e.g. health care, education, etc.  Further, the Democratic Convention suggests that the Democratic party is the party that cares about a shared responsibility for the collective mankind, establishing a suggested radical individualism present among Republican.  More simply put, the Democrats are often portrayed as the party that cares about the poor, while the Republicans are the party that cares only about themselves.  Paul Ryan has maintained that he is fiscally conservative in part because he does care about the poor.  His prudential judgement has led him to believe that the best way to help the poor is through fiscal monetary policies.

However, when the proposal to privatize any government service arises, alongside we find a familiar, and seemingly difficult to overcome, argument.  Just as an example, let’s take education.  Were we to privatize our education system completely, would that not leave several individuals in a position of not being able to afford tuition.  There are, after all, people in tax brackets that pay less in education taxes than it costs for the government to educate their children, just as there are those who pay more in education taxes than the cost of education.  This is the point of taxes for social services: a redistribution of wealth.  It is misunderstood that those who would defend a privatized system are selfishly attached to “my money” and somehow prioritize the individual over the community.  This is a red herring, though; the discussion is not about the priority of the individual or the community, but rather about the best way to serve the community, through tax dollars or private charitable giving.  Those who cannot afford tuition would be helped in the same way that many are now helped who cannot afford other necessities: through freely offered private charitable giving.  Typically, the next objection is that this is overly optimistic about human generosity.  In other words, the amount of freely offered charity will not be able to sustain the need, and hence compulsory giving, i.e. taxes, is necessary.  My aim is to defend that in most cases a privatized system will out-give compulsory giving  via taxation and that freely offered charity enjoys philosophical and theological advantages over dollars extracted through a tax system.

 

The Numbers

My thesis is that private funds will be able to account for the drop in funding by eliminating the taxes that current fund the social service.  To see this, we need to discuss two economic realities.

The first is the efficiency with which the government, and by contrast the private sector, provides social services.  Robert Woodson (1989), in Breaking the Poverty Cycle: Private Sector Alternatives to the Welfare State, has calculated that, on average, 70% of the funds collected through taxes dedicated to social services goes not to the social service itself, but instead to administrative bureaucracy.  This means that for every dollar collected by the government, only 30 cents actually goes towards the service.  Michael Tanner corroborates this 70/30 split through several regional studies in The End of Welfare (1998).  In contrast to this, the same administrative/service split in the private sector is reversed.  Only one-third of privately collected monies goes towards administrative services, and two-third goes towards the actual cause.  According to Edwards (“The Cost of Public Income Redistribution, 2007), 70 percent of newer charities, as rated by Charity Navigator, spend at least 75% of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide.  90% spend at least 65%, and the median among all charities in the sample was 90.7%.

The reason for this is basic competition.  Private sector charities are under strong pressure to operate efficiently because donors want to know that a large percentage of their gifts go to support the appointed cause.  Programs that operate inefficiently will cease to attract donors and eventually cease to exist.  True, there are some very unethical charities out there that take advantage of donors’ money, but over time and with adequate exposure, competition solves this problem.  In contrast, government lacks the motivation experienced by private charitable organizations to operate at efficient levels.  There is an ironic turn of events in this: according to Edwards,

“Those operating at levels of inefficiency comparable to the average government agency are often prosecuted – by the government (which never applies the same standards or threat to its own agencies – for fraud.  Pressure on private charities to avoid such prosecution, and the bad publicity and loss of public trust resulting, is strong.”

The contrasting levels of efficiency between the public and private sectors means that the government has to raise over twice as much money in taxes as the private sector would have to raise in donations in order to provide the same service (assuming the private sector operates at a 70% efficiency level).  In other words, if a social service costs 21 million dollars, the government would have to extract 70 million dollars in taxes in order to cover the cost.  The private sector would have to raise only 30 million dollars.  This assumes a generous 70/30 split in the private sector.  As stated earlier, the median is closer to a 90/10 split, and in this case the private sector would only have to raise 23.3 million dollars, only a third what the government requires.

The second economic reality is what is known as “crowding out.”  The idea is that, as the government collects tax money and budgets it towards a social cause, private donors become less likely to donate their own funds.  In other words, the government support “crowds out” private donations.  Arthur Brooks in “Is There a Dark Side to Government Support for Nonprofits?” (2000) lists four reasons why crowding out occurs.  The most obvious is that a cause that already receives funding from a third source (government or otherwise) is unlikely to appear as “in need” and therefore unlikely to attract additions donations.  Second, “subsidies to non-profit firms may make them appear to private donors ‘non-mainstream’ and, hence, in need of non-market support.”  Third, private donors often want to know they have some control over the organization they choose to support.  Finally, since government support is taxed-based, it decreases the amount of disposable income that private donors can direct towards charitable causes.  (This last effect is compounded by the relative inefficiency with which government social programs operates.)

Crowd out rates are measured as percentages of a dollar that are “crowded out” for every government dollar added.  For instance, a 70% crowd out rate means that for every tax dollar the government collects for a cause, the private donations are reduced by 70 cents.  “Total crowd out” is a dollar-for-dollar exchange, so for every dollar injected by the federal government, exactly one dollar of private donations is eliminated.  Anything less is considered “partial crowd out.”

The literature that measures crowd out rates falls generally into three categories: real world data, theoretical models, and theoretical controlled experiments.  Unfortunately, crowd out rates based on real world data are across the board.  Brooks summarizes some of the studies which quote real world rates anywhere from 1.8% to 66%.

The theoretical models depend in part on the assumptions made about givers.  In one model, charity is determined exclusively by the need of a particular cause, in which case crowd out rates are total (dollar-for-dollar).  The idea is that a cause only needs a finite amount of money and people are willing to pay to see that finite amount met.  If the government steps in and meets part of the requirement, the private donors, sensing the need has been decreased, will decrease their donations dollar for dollar.  If the government decreases their support, private donations step back in and pick up the slack, again dollar-for-dollar.  The crowd out rate in such cases is 100%.  Other models suggest that people give not simply to satisfy a social need, but also for personal satisfaction, a “warm glow” effect.  James Andreoni is a leading expert in this area, and his models predict a minimum of 71.5% crowd out rate (“An Experimental Test of the Public-Goods Crowding-Out Hypothesis,” 1993).  A third model attempts to consider the effect of giving competition.  The idea is that donors are more likely to give at a particular level based on what their peers are giving.  In this case, Alan Krause (“On the Crowding-Out Effects of Tax-Financed Charitable Contributions by the Government,” 2011) predicts that crowding out may be attenuated by such competition, but the situation is highly unstable.  If even a single person has some motivation to drop their giving, others will follow suit in the face of government subsidies and crowding out rate approaches total.

The third category in the literature is controlled theoretical experiments.  Generally this falls into the mathematical area of Game Theory.  Andreoni is again an expert in this field, and his experiments have corroborated his theoretical rates, in one case 71.5% and in another up to 84%.  Another experiment (“An Experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis,” C. Eckel, et. al., 2003) attempted to separate groups into those who knew that third party funds were coming from tax dollars (“no fiscal illusion”) and those who were unaware of the source of the new funds (“fiscal illusion”).  In the case of fiscal illusion, the authors found no evidence of crowding out, but in the case where donors were aware that tax dollars were subsidizing the cause, crowding was almost total.

In the face of these three categories of results, we are forced to ask: which ones are “better”.  In other words, if were are going after actual crowd out rates, would it not make sense to trust those that are data driven?  No, says Andreoni.  The problem with the data-driven results is that they are incapable of separating out a vast range of influences.  In other words, it is nearly impossible to have a “control” in the real economic world.  For instance, “it is impossible to know whether the incomplete crowding-out found [in the literature] is the result of certain institutional features not captured by the model, or whether it is due to individual preferences that are different than those assumed in public-goods models.”  The purpose of the laboratory experiments is to provide such a control.  Keep in mind that the laboratory experiments are not entirely mathematical – they involve real people making real decisions.  It is also telling that the lab experiments are consistent with the theoretical models developed elsewhere in the literature.

All told, the present author is comfortable in making the assumption that average crowd out rates are at least at the 60% level, that is, for every dollar injected by the government into a social cause, 60 cents is taken out in private donations.  Given the theoretical models and the laboratory experiments, which typically come in around 70%, I feel that this is a generous assumption for my purposes.

_____________________________
Part II can be found here.
Part III can be found here.
Continue reading...

14 Responses to Can the Private Sector Support What the Public Sector Claims To?

  • Excellent post, Jake. One of the best I’ve read in a long time. I am somewhat surprised to find myself in agreement, though not with high confidence. One factor to take into account is the chilling effect that free rider concerns are sure to have on those who consider responsibility for the poor to be a societal one rather than an individual one. These folks, mostly liberals as revealed in Brooks’ research, will resent that some contribute to this social responsibility but not all, and therefore will rationalize a comfort in not giving. In other words the funds paid by liberals as taxes for the needy, once eliminated, will largely stay with those liberals. That said, I don’t think that fact necessarily defeats your hypothesis.

  • Jake,
    You’ll need to factor in as you go: less free will giving by most families were medicaid to be gradually phased out. Medicaid covers 60% of elderly in nursing homes. I saw a media spot which showed a lady who went though all her $300,000 in assets in five years in a nursing home after which Medicaid kicked in to pay $50,000 a year for her since she had gone from middleclass to poverty via the nursing home experience and thus qualified for Medicaid despite working and saving her whole life. Were children of the elderly to be responsible for $50,000 to $70,000 a year for a disabled parent, such children then would not be donating to charities throughout their lifetimes to the extent that they would either be saving much more for the future personally or they would be
    funding long term health insurance for their parents and themselves. Celibates in the world laity would also be obliged for their future to save much more since they have no children to pay for their nursing home…should they need one.
    Catholic old age homes are a private charity of sorts but 60% of their income comes from medicaid. Medicaid’s budget in 2010 was $401 billion dollars.
    The Vatican is thought to have one billion in investments. Were the Vatican to give it all to the things Medicaid covers, it would be a pittance. Catholics at the parish level gave $60 million to
    Haiti after the quake. That is minuscule compared to the Medicaid budget.
    Rupert Murdoch’s billionaire group are pledged to charity giving which again is a fraction of the Medicaid budget which covers by the way 37% of births in US hospitals…in some cases, unjustly so…but the Bishops will be noticing than as Medicaid gets withdrawn from the lower economic classes, abortion will be more likely because it’s cheaper than what Medicaid now pays.
    Withdrawal of the safety net means the middleclass will have to save much more for their own old age or for their parents and that will reduce the urge to give charity.
    Proceed with your paradigm but include the attendant new money pressures on anyone who is not a millionaire because old age can quickly make savings in the hundreds of thousands vanish if illness attends old age and one needs a skilled nursing home for ongoing nursing care. I suspect a minority need it but since no one knows their future, all will have to financially prepare for it.

  • Correction…not Rupert Murdoch’s but rather Warren Buffet’s charity group.

  • “You’ll need to factor in as you go: less free will giving by most families were medicaid to be gradually phased out”

    That is a significant concern for many older people. Under federal law (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005), once a long term care resident applies for Medicaid, all their financial transactions for the previous 5 years are subject to scrutiny. Any money given to another person or entity during this “look back” period without receiving something of equal value in return is deemed a “transfer of assets”. Asset transfers that are not exempt under one’s state law MAY incur a penalty period — meaning, you are deemed ineligible for Medicaid for a period equal to the amount of time you could have paid for your own care with the transferred assets. If you’re already broke and in the nursing home when you apply for Medicaid and you get hit with a penalty, this means you either have to move out temporarily, or the nursing home has to go unpaid for a period of time, or you have to go through the process of getting a hardship waiver (meaning more bureaucratic hoops and delay).

    Now, most states do have provisions for exempting charitable gifts and routine gifts to family and friends for Christmas or other special occasions. However, if one’s financial records are not in order, or your state’s law doesn’t have a specific exemption for charitable/family gifts, or the caseworker processing your application is extremely strict, a person COULD end up being penalized for having made large charitable or family gifts during the look back period.

    The DRA rules are based on an assumption that seniors should be saving as much money as they can to pay for their own long term care and not leaving it on the taxpayers. I understand that, and wealthy people shouldn’t be able to dump six- or seven-figure assets on their heirs, plead poverty and get on Medicaid. At the same time, seniors who want to be generous to their community, church, or family shouldn’t have to live in fear of being left out in the cold if they get sick and end up in a nursing home. Consultation with a knowledgeable elder law attorney is essential.

  • “The DRA rules are based on an assumption that seniors should be saving as much money as they can to pay for their own long term care and not leaving it on the taxpayers.”

    That is a truly fantasy assumption. Most people heading to the nursing home have virtually nothing to their name other than social security and their house. People who do have the ability to pay their nursing home bills frequently engage in strenuous efforts to transfer their property prior to entering the nursing home in order to have the taxpayer pick up the tab. (There are ways to legally accomplish this if done long enough prior to entering the nursing home.) If one wishes to retain an optimistic view of human nature, this is not an area of law to have much exposure to. Unfortunately the vast majority of people save little for a rainy day, especially for their old age, and when it does rain the first reaction is to look to the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

  • Elaine,
    Just so your readers know….Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership for which the Ryan budget
    would cut the Federal part by $800 billion over ten years starting immediately if he were able to get it passed. The states then would have more say but would have to come up with more money or reduce coverage but within court ordered mandates that forbid certain cuts. On our property tax statement and perhaps on yours, it will show how much your property taxes were reduced by state funding of same. That funding would decrease as states pick up the medicaid funding cut from the Fed. That means…property taxes would “levitate” if I might give it a mystical term….another pressure on non millionaires that would militate against charity donations…along with proposed elimination of the deduction for mortgage interest. Would federal tax decreases cover the new state exactions? We can only pray to St. Matthew…the patron saint of tax collectors.

  • As I proceed through this reflection, it is critical to note that I am not presenting a recipe for how to transition from a State where public funds are used to fund social causes, be they wealth redistribution programs or health care programs, to a State where such causes are funded through private charitable giving. Such a transition is way beyond my pay grade, to quote our illustrious leader. I am presenting evidence that merely favors the existence of charity State over a welfare State. Most of the arguments above, particularly those about Medicaid, have, I think, more to do with the transition than the possible existence. In that sense, they are quite valid. What would various members of society do if they were suddenly put in the position of having to fund large expenses that were previously funded by tax redistribution? This is an important question, but not the one I seek to answer in this series of posts.

    The question I seek to answer is whether or not a charity State is possible. In that light, the objections about the dissolution of Medecaid are not relevant. By this I mean no disrespect to the commentators – merely to clarify the question I am addressing. The argument is that medical expense, like other living expenses, can in fact be funded through purely private means. (Again, transition issues aside.) On the surface, there is nothing special about health care funding compared with other social industries … except …

    The one thing that makes health care funding a bit different is the way the government to some degree controls the prices. It seems, then, that the crowd out/efficiency arguments won’t work. In fact, I seems to recall reading some studies that suggest that government health care is actually more efficient. Yet even this is an illusion. The government does not control how much medical expenses cost, only how much people charge for them. In this way, the government is guilty of currency manipulation (subtly). In the end, this effects the economy and will eventually expose the inefficiency for what it is. Remember, every time the government spends money it is a tax, whether that tax dollar is collected directly or not.

  • People who do have the ability to pay their nursing home bills frequently engage in strenuous efforts to transfer their property prior to entering the nursing home in order to have the taxpayer pick up the tab. (There are ways to legally accomplish this if done long enough prior to entering the nursing home.) If one wishes to retain an optimistic view of human nature, this is not an area of law to have much exposure to. Unfortunately the vast majority of people save little for a rainy day, especially for their old age, and when it does rain the first reaction is to look to the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

    At the rates prevailing in my home town, a pre-mortem stay in a nursing home of mean duration (about 11 months) will set you back about $95,000. Having that amount in liquid assets lying about likely is fairly atypical. Here in New York, liquidating a first residence is not necessary as long as the spouse resides therein.

    They would actually have to anticipate their entry into a nursing home by a minimum of five years in New York and have a set of trusted relations with which to park assets. One, the other, or both are commonly absent. Also, nursing homes commonly want proof from a private-pay patient that they have the means to pay one year’s worth of charges. Most admitted to nursing homes do no last that long. Social Security, pensions, and income from testamentary trusts must be applied unless there is a surviving spouse. Also, comprehensively dumping your assets on proximate relations precludes the use of institutions short of nursing homes, such as supervised apartment buildings and assisted living centers unless you have ample retirement income.

    People do not commonly save for disasters, and the necessity of making use of long term care is in fact a disaster. They make use of insurance. The trouble is, the purchase of long term care insurance has not been a cultural habit, it is expensive, and a surprisingly large share of the population are deemed uninsurable risks under current underwriting standards. There is a reason that two-thirds of the charges for long-term care in this country are met by public expenditure.

  • “At the rates prevailing in my home town, a pre-mortem stay in a nursing home of mean duration (about 11 months) will set you back about $95,000. ”

    About half that in my part of Central Illinois.

    “They would actually have to anticipate their entry into a nursing home by a minimum of five years in New York and have a set of trusted relations with which to park assets. One, the other, or both are commonly absent.”

    In my county Art, homes or farm land is normally what is protected, and the transfers usually occur eight to six years prior to the entry into the nursing home, assuming they live long enough to be a nursing home patient.

    “Also, nursing homes commonly want proof from a private-pay patient that they have the means to pay one year’s worth of charges.”

    No such requirement exists with nursing homes in my locale.

    “Also, comprehensively dumping your assets on proximate relations precludes the use of institutions short of nursing homes, such as supervised apartment buildings and assisted living centers unless you have ample retirement income.”

    That assumes the relatives will not use the transferred assets for the benfit of the individual who transferred the asset. I find that is normally not the case here where there is usually a parent child relationship. A bigger problem is an asset becoming involved in a child’s divorce or bankruptcy.

    “People do not commonly save for disasters,”

    Many people do not save for anything at all. In regard to nursing home care you have the same problem as you do in regard to wills and powers of attorney. Thinking about it causes people to consider their own mortality, and many people simply do not wish to do so and so avoid even the simplest of planning until an emergency arises, such as a stroke or a heart attack.

  • By the way, by ‘rates prevailing’, I mean Medicaid re-imbursement rates. For private pay, add about 25%.

    Here in New York, if you have transferred assets at any time in the previous 60 months, you had best not apply for Medicaid. The period of time during which the state will refuse to re-imburse the nursing home is calculated on the basis of the quantum of assets transferred in the previous 60 months. The people with whom you parked the assets will have to liquidate them until the clock is up. In some states (New York is not one), children of nursing home residents have legal obligations and can be the subject to lawsuits by the state or nursing home operators. The way the rules are structured, it requires a goldilocks set of conditions for the wealthy to avoid paying six figure sums of money toward their care.

    About families, I can tell you a couple of stories, one about a good family and one about a hopelessly messy one.

    I should mention that the case of successful and lawful asset dumping of which I am personally familiar involved a very ordinary couple who transferred ownership of their house to their only child. Their daughter was employed as a secretary in my office. It is not just the wealthy who do this.

  • When I say ‘people do not commonly save for disasters’, I am not referring to their prudence but to the means they can reasonably employ to prepare for certain contingencies. Very few people can save to pay for cancer treatments, which is why alternate means such as risk pooling (insurance) are utile. The thing is, a private market for long term care insurance can provide workable solutions for many individual households, but not for the society as a whole.

  • “the case of successful and lawful asset dumping of which I am personally familiar involved a very ordinary couple who transferred ownership of their house to their only child.”

    The federal DRA specifically permits this kind of transfer if the child lived in the home giving care to one or both parents that can demonstrably be shown to have prevented or delayed the parent(s) entry into a nursing home for at least 2 years. I don’t know whether the woman you refer to did this, but if she did, I wouldn’t call it “asset dumping”; I would call it fair recompense for doing everything she could to keep her parents from becoming public charges as long as possible.

  • Maybe to get back on topic, we need to consider a broader question than just Medicaid planning for seniors. The question is: if the public sector stopped providing assistance to persons in need and left it to the private sector, would charitable giving increase, or would it decrease because most people of modest or lesser means would have to be more preoccupied with saving money to take care of themselves?

  • Elaine,

    I am happy to see this get back on topic. This was the very question I seek to ask, and I would direct folks to not only read this, but the follow up piece as well. The evidence is actually fairly clear. When you piece together crowd-out rates and efficiency ratings, most causes can be taken care of by private charitable giving. We can discuss until we’re blue in the face whether or not we *think* this may or may not happen, but the actual research in the field suggests strongly that it will. *Why* is another question altogether. And I made the point in a previous comment that the transition would not be an easy thing. But on the theoretical level, the case for private giving is quite clear. Keep in mind, when we talk about these things, one cannot look at an individual case and generalize. It is clear that average Joe, who will now potentially be responsible for this or that cause, may not have the funds to do it. On the other hand, there will be those that experience a lot more dollars in pocket due to lower taxes, and the numbers suggest that they will give more generously because of this. History is full of several examples. I would point more modernly to the Christo Rey schools as an example for where education can be provided for out of private giving. The social organizations of the early 1900’s (Knights of Columbus being one of them) where doing a fine job of providing all sorts of insurance and aide to those financially in need.

    Again, it may be difficult to imagine that this or that cause could be funded if government gets out of the picture, but this is exactly the issue I am addressing in this and the following post. This first post only raises the question and defines some terms. The second one actually makes the mathematical argument.

Obama Picked Up: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Monday, September 10, AD 2012

(Photo credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

The story goes like this (emphasis not mine):

In Florida for his bus tour on Sunday, President Barack Obama made an unannounced stop at Big Apple Pizza and Pasta in Ft. Pierce. There, the shop’s owner, Scott Van Duzer, lifted the president off the ground”

Obama entered the shop saying, “Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I’ve ever seen,” according to a White House pool report.

Van Duzer, 46, is a big guy: He is 6′ 3″ tall and weighs 260 pounds.

After Obama was lifted up, he said “Look at that!” Man are you a powerlifter or what?”

He continued, according to the pool, talking about Van Duzer’s big muscles.

“Everybody look at these guns,” he said. “If I eat your pizza will I look like that?”

Van Duzer, by the way, is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and says he will do so again in November.

“I don’t vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him,” he told the press pool.

Usually I don’t write about just politics, but as a matter of principle, I found this incident deeply disturbing. It’s dishonest; it’s propaganda, and propaganda can be dangerous. I may not be a specialist in matters of security, but any average citizen can see that this is totally staged.

When the President is in public, the Secret Service agents wear him like cologne (sorry, my husband’s descriptor). This is standard procedure, not just for Obama, but for any president, especially since the assassination of President Kennedy. Do you see a Secret Service agent anywhere in the shot? Nope.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Obama Picked Up: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

  • Well Obama has picked up in the polls too. Wall Street sold off health management as a result.
    Humana, Wellpoint, and United Health care are all down over 2% right now as a result.

  • Obama is experiencing a fairly typical post covention bounce. Walter Mondale got a sixteen point bounce in 1984 and was ahead of Reagan by two points in a Newsweek poll post convention. In 2008 McCain enjoyed a post convention bounce and led Obama by five points for about a week.

    The bear hug picture flummoxes me. I can’t see how it is a good image for Obama to be picked up as if he is a toy, but obviously it is the image that his campaign wanted taken. The bear hugger had previously been a guest at the White House, so this was no random event, unlike Biden and the bikers.

  • This is also part of a strategy to portray Obama as a supporter of small business. In reality, a recent Rasmussen poll shows business owners favor Romney 56% to 36%, and a Manta poll has small business owners favoring Romney 61% to 26%. People need to understand this is not a contest between the Koch Brothers and Obama the Champion of the Little Guy. Business owners, with good reason, don’t have any faith in Obama.

  • I have seen this picture and that one of Joe with the biker chick on his lap. Just like the presicent, the V.P. has secret service all round him. were both photos staged? I’d say yes. When we look at the picture of Joe Biden and the two ‘bikers’ on each side of him, it might of only been the presence of the Secret Service just outside the picture image that kept him from getting ‘biked’. I did some searching and can find nothing about Joe Biden being or ever been a bike rider but does seem to have a fancy for them. As for the photo of the president in the bear-hug, his ‘cologne’ is most likely a arms length away and the ‘hugger’ had probably been checked out as read one note that he had visited the White House – but need fact check on that.

  • Donald,
    Based on what you said, there’s probably a trade not investment in Humana in these days. Wall Street is short term emotions especially with low volume lately which causes unusual swings. Another reaction from Wall St. is that Smith and Wesson firearms is up over 3.8% just today. If you care to check wall street tells on Obama on any day, just go to yahoo finance and put in the symbol for Smith and Wesson… SWHC or Humana…HUM. Guns go up and health care managers go down if there’s good news for Obama. It will simply tell you whether to check the news further than usual for anything new like a poll report.

  • If the Biker Biden event wasn’t staged, that is defintely a failure on the part of the Secret Service because they are tasked to wear the VP “like cologne” as well.

  • Looks like reverse snobbery and fawning for votes from ‘types’.

    For the psychological effect of admiration for how they relate to the little guy in America.

    Totally transparent, cheap, and demeaning for all involved. ‘Friends’ in need.

    Do they not have work to do? Campaigning and troublemaking for four years while bankrupting the country is doing no good for their new friends when the bubble bursts.

    (The people who would normally be kept at a distance were they to even want to make body contact with the two leaders of the world stage.)

  • I read somewhere this morning that this was utterly staged, asand that the Pizza guy has visited the Whitehouse- supposedly this year. I would imagine then that they set it up to look random, but as Stacy and others have mentioned, they’d never let an act like this take place without security. It IS propaganda. As is most of his campaign.

  • Do we really have to pick everything apart? The trip was not planned, they had not met before, and yes he ask before he picked him up. He is mingling with voters. I am not an Obama fan, however I really dislike when people pick everything that happens apart. I have friends that have worked in high profile government positions and you are correct no one can just pick him up, however not everything is staged, and this made the day of the man mentioned as well as several other Ft. Pierce residents. I have a friend who was present and they all where touched by how down to earth and friendly he was. Just realize as Christians and Americans, if we over think and over justify everything that happens and over dramatize it, we will all be miserable. So relax, and write about the bigger issues, and not the small stuff.

  • “The trip was not planned, they had not met before, and yes he ask before he picked him up.”

    Actually the man had ridden by bike to the White House in support of his blood transfusion charity over the summer. There was nothing random about this, although I doubt if the White House thought the image would make Obama appear as weak as it does. The bear hugger is facing a boycott of his pizza business from clients that do not share his enthusiasm for Obama.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120910florida-obama-bear-hug-restaurant-boycott-politico.html

  • Ann, Staged events are common fare on the campaign trail. All indications are that this was yet another. I’m not offended by the staging. Politics is at least in part theater. I am offended by the insistance that the public swallow such nonsense. Acknowledge that a campaign advance team had him on the list, interviewed him, thought up this stunt, ran it by the Secret Service, and then move on.

    Don, A boycott is a mean and stupid thing to do. He is a businessman who hoped to get some free advertising by having a staged meeting with the President. Restaurants in Philly often have signed photographs of celebrities who have eaten there. This means no more than that.

    I wonder though how the President squares advertising a pizza parlor while the First Lady actively pursues a health food revolution. Given how thin the President has become, maybe he snuck an extra slice or two off camera: “no Michelle, I just got thrown around like a rag doll and left. Honest! Ask the Secret Service! Hey Bob, tell the First Lady I never touch the stuff. See? Aw, come on baby, you know I’d never eat something you said I shouldn’t. Now lets go down to the kitchen and see if the White House chef can rustle us up some celery sticks an salt substitute.”

  • “A boycott is a mean and stupid thing to do. He is a businessman who hoped to get some free advertising by having a staged meeting with the President.”

    Actually G-Veg he announced that he is a Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and who is going to do so again this year. He is the one who brought his politics front and center. When one does that in the business world one has to be ready for the consequences.

  • Enthusiasm for the President perplexes me.

  • You know, Ann, I was thinking about what you said, and this seemingly little antic tells me much more than a speech does. It reveals something really flawed in his character, at a fundamental level. For him, it’s not about our country, it’s all about him. And like Don said, I don’t want to see our President basically looking like like someone’s toy. Showing the public that people are comfortable with you is one thing (and, for a president, not a very important thing), but this is borderline narcissism.

    We need a leader, not an action figure.

  • Yes, he thinks we’re that stupid. And he went up in the polls. We are that stupid. He’s right.

  • His post convention bounce is already fading Bruce and even with polls that are stacked in favor of Obama in regard to Democrat samples the race is statistically a dead heat, which is very bad news for Obama less than a week after his convention.

Sixteen Trillion Reasons to Vote Against Obama

Monday, September 10, AD 2012

The national debt is now north of sixteen trillion dollars,  5.4 trillion of the debt having been incurred under President Obama.  Go here to view a real time debt clock.  Our gross national product for this year is estimated to be 15.84 trillion dollars.  Anyone who cannot see the financial precipice that we are at is a blithering idiot, and Obama is counting on his or her vote.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Sixteen Trillion Reasons to Vote Against Obama

  • And he has plans to raise that number to the crippling point. All his voters will be hung out to dry and he’ll be unavailable, in safety, and still not giving a damn for anyone.

  • Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Why is this piece published by “The American Catholic”? Why not rant against lack
    Of health care and ignoring the poor?

  • “Whatever happened to separation of church and state?”
    A good question for Obama in light of the HHS mandate.

    “Why is this piece published by “The American Catholic”?”
    Because as it says in our masthead we cover politics and culture from a Catholic perspective and have been doing so for almost four years.

    “Why not rant against lack Of health care and ignoring the poor?”

    A good point Fred. Obama’s policies have certainly led to poorer health care, and his economic policies have greatly increased the number of the poor. Thanks for the suggestion!

Father Barron Reviews For Greater Glory

Monday, September 10, AD 2012

The Blu Ray and DVD releases of For Greater Glory are coming out on September 11, 2012For Greater Glory tells the story of the Cristeros who bravely fought for religious freedom and the Church in the 1920s in Mexico.  I heartily recommend this film.  The above video is Father Robert Barron’s insightful review of the film.   (I believe he is too sanguine as to the effectiveness of purely non-violent movements in the face of regimes who don’t care how many people they kill, but that is a debate for another day.)   The below video has additional remarks by Father Barron on the film.  Go here for my review of the film.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Father Barron Reviews For Greater Glory

  • Thank you, Donald! I watched Fr. Barron’s first video above, but it’s now time to shower to go to “Neutrons ‘R Us” and be productive. But I just wanted to say that while I am among the first to advocate that our Second Amendment protests the First, maybe there is something to Jesus’ rebuke against the sons of thunder for wanting to call down an air strike against those unrepentant villages of yore. True – not the same situation as the Cristeros, but victory is through the Cross and always has been. I will still, however, keep my mini-14 in good working order lest, Heaven forbid, we ourselves in America face our own Plutarco Elias Calles. God bless!

  • Opps – protects, NOT protests! Darn fat fingers on iPad keyboard!

  • Christ was never interested in politics Paul, or any of the more mundane matters that must concern us. The truth is that Christianity has been effectively exterminated by force in many regions of the planet throughout history. The examples cited by Father Barron, Gandhi and King, would have been completely useless in the face of totalitarian regimes. One can imagine the short shrift that Gandhi would have received if the Nazis had ultimately conquered the British Empire for example. Traditionally the Church has understood both the need for priests and soldiers and I stand by that traditional wisdom.

    “And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,

    And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross.”

  • “One can imagine the short shrift that Gandhi would have received if the Nazis had ultimately conquered the British Empire for example.”

    Sounds like you may have read Harry Turtledove’s “The Last Article.”

    One of the grimmer short stories from his oeuvre.

  • Thought so. 🙂

    Great, insightful alternate history that rings wholly true.

    Sure, the tyrant can repent in the face of non-violence, but he has to accept the legitimacy of that tactic in the first place. He has to have a conscience, and it has to be a lot like yours.

    Speaking of grim Turtledove ruminations, I just re-read “Ready for the Fatherland” last night–my wife found it in storage. A helpful reminder that one of the greatest assets to the Allied cause in wartime was Hitler’s armchair generalship.

  • Gandhi’s advice to the Jews in Germany prior to World War 2:

    “Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Musalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all the one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment . And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the god fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.”

    Gandhi’s belief in non-violence admitted no failure, even if all the people attempting it were massacred. I assume the Jews found this letter cold comfort indeed, as the more perceptive among them no doubt realized that a massacre on an unbelievable scale was where the Nazi anti-Semitic policies were heading.

  • Toleration, passive aggressive-resistance and non-violent resistance.

    Being sued and penalized for practicing my freedom of religion is not toleration. Government is the servant of the sovereign person. Toleration of freedom by the government is the enslavement of the sovereign person. Freedom comes from God, our “Creator”.

    Government is constituted by its constituents to celebrate the freedom of its constituents, to protect, to guard and to do combat for the freedom of its constituents. Toleration of the freedom of religion by the individuals who constitute government is totalitarianism. Non-violent resistance is labeled “passive aggressive resistance” by a government that is no longer government, but dictatorship. The dictatorship says: “I will let you…have some of your rational, immortal soul”. The dictatorship says: “You did not build that”.

    Government says: “God built that”.

    Paul W. Primavera: May your “fat fingers” continue to comment.

    Donald McClarey: “Traditionally the Church has understood both the need for priests and soldiers and I stand by that traditional wisdom.” “You shall not stand idly by while your neighbor’s life is in jeopardy.”

  • I think Fr. Barron’s priase of those who didn’t directluy participate in the fighting and writing off the combatants as merely “well intentioned” rather silly when you consider the fat that the young boy who has since been beatified was a comabatant and those who didn’t directly participate did what they did in support of the Crsteros combatants.

  • The Crusades were ordered by the reining Pope. The Crusades were not a non violent response to the Muslims. The Church gave the world the just war concept. So much for non violence.

  • In non-violence, the purpose of which is to instruct people with the reality of the human being’s immortal soul, Ghandi said: the scripture: “an eye for an eye”, will make the whole world blind. The law was written to save some of the eyes in the world. When Jesus told Peter to put down the sword, Peter was already an ordained priest, since the Last Supper, just as Father Barron is an ordained priest, who belongs to the church, first and to the people second. Lay people serve as armed forces and may, God forbid, die by the sword. Non-violence does not repudiate armed force. Armed force repudiates violence.

15 Responses to Biden Presses The Flesh

September 9, 1942: Lookout Air Raid

Sunday, September 9, AD 2012

One of the more daring air raids of World War II, on September 9, 1942 a Japanese float plane piloted by Warrant Office Nobou Fujita took off from the I-25 , a Japanese submarine, that was off Cape Blanco on the southwestern Oregon coast. The intention was to drop two incendiary bombs to start forest fires.    Fujita dropped both bombs, one of which exploded, in the Siskiyou National Forest.  The ensuing forest fire was minor and easily put out, the forest being damp from recent rains, and Howard “Razz” Gardner manning a fire lookout tower having spotted the plane as it conducted the bombing.  Fujita flew back to the I-25.  On September 29 Fujita made a second attack which caused only negligible damage.

Although one has to appreciate the daring of the Japanese involved, this operation barely deserves footnote status as the only time the continental United States has been bombed by an enemy power.  What is more interesting, and encouraging in what it says about human nature, is that twenty years after the bombings, in 1962, Fujita was invited to Brookings, the town nearest the bombings.  After the Japanese government ascertained that there was no intention of attempting to try Fujita as a war criminal, Fujita went.  He was made Grand Marshal of the local Azalea Festival.  Fujita gave the town a 400 year old samurai sword from his family as a token of regret.  ( He had intended to commit seppuku with it if his reception had been unfriendly.)

Continue reading...

2 Responses to September 9, 1942: Lookout Air Raid

Liberal Reaction to Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction at the Democrat Convention

Sunday, September 9, AD 2012

 

In his benediction at the close of the Democrat Convention last week, Timothy Cardinal Dolan mentioned the unborn.  Here is the text of his prayer:

With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:

 

Let us Pray.

Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation.  Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States.  Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.
We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure.  We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected.  Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.

We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty.  May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms.  Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty:  the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice.  Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love.  Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.

We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness.  Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community.  May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.

We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Oh God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us:  President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office.  Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country.  Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.

And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice.  We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.

And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.

For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”

So dear God, bless America.  You who live and reign forever and ever. 

Amen!

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Liberal Reaction to Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction at the Democrat Convention

  • Not only did he speak for the unborn, but he also spoke against so-called same sex “marriage” with these words:

    Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community.

    His choice of words might have been lost on some people; he could’ve been a bit more direct but I sure caught it when he said it.

  • Is there anyone more intolerant, more divisive, more unkind, more prejudiced, more stereotypical than a liberal Democrat sacrificing an unborn baby at the altar of Molech and reveling in homosexual filth at his Asteroth pole? Nothing has changed in 3000 years.

  • The f- bomb reminds me of a three year old that thinks the word “poopy” is hilarious and will use it three times in every sentence until he is totally ignored and the thrill goes away.

  • Twitter must kill brain cells. Even if I were Liberal I’d be ashamed of these tweets — how about something a _little_ more coherent like “What’s an anti-gay anti-women GOP shill doing at our convention?”

    Sad to see the only support for Card. Dolan from user DontF—WithDolan who responded with an obscene tu quoque.

  • Matthew 5:10-12 – Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

  • Although the contemporary subtext might be a trifle off-putting, I’d say that Cardinal Dolan executed a perfect Trojan horse.

  • I know he has too much class, but I’d love to hear Cdl Dolan give the eulogy at the Obama Administration funeral on Nov 7. Hopefully.

  • Ah, that would be a sight to see Larry!

  • Cardinal Dolan answered our prayers.

  • ….. …has lost much of its shock value and is primarily of use these days as an idiot detector.”
    Couldn’t agree more.

  • Wow, speaking Truth to Power – I thought liberals were all in favor of that?

    You can add hypocrite to intolerant.

  • Phew!!!!! Donald, that language is straight from Lucifer’s Hell. Beloved Americans, what has hit you? How low can you become. Surely, you cannot insult the Cardinal for speaking exactly the way Jesus would speak. What did you expect he would pray for when you invitedhim? But then, perhaps I am the one who needs educating here. Jesus is anathema to the Democracts, right????

  • If you really want to tear ALL of your hair out you should see the “world over live” with Raymond Arroyo (Thurs night) interview with a “prolife Catholic Doctor” who is a Pro-life Democrat in the house. It is the most blathering bunch of idiocy I have ever heard. It’s right up there with Sebilius, Pelosi and all the other “Catholics” who are in governing postitions in our country

Gangsters

Sunday, September 9, AD 2012

 

 

The Obama administration promised hope and change.  Hope is certainly in short supply in this country but change they certainly have  brought about.  A current example:

In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”

Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

 

That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc.”

The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.

In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology… You got a nice poll there… would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

 In a second email chain titled “slanderous link about Gallup methodology,” another senior Gallup official noted that a Washington Examiner story on Axelrod’s anti-Gallup tweet was “on [the] Drudge [Report] right now,” before writing that the episode was “[s]o politically motivated, it’s laughable.”

 “As they say in b-ball: he’s trying to work the refs,” that official wrote to other senior Gallup staffers. “What a joke. Axel’s had a bad week. He got in the middle of the Ann Romney thing. Then said the country is going in the wrong direction. (Oops!) Now he’s swinging at us.”

The emails directly contradict what Axelrod’s fellow Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket this week about the campaign’s dealings with Gallup. Picket reported that Gibbs said he was unaware of any communications between the Obama campaign and Gallup.

Continue reading...

One Response to Gangsters

You Racist Republicans!

Saturday, September 8, AD 2012

 

I know it may come as a shock to many of our readers but Time magazine, that traditional mainstay of dentist waiting rooms throughout the country, is still being published.  It has a piece by an author who aspires to one name status:  Toure.

In his article Toure explains how Republicans, no doubt while chortling evilly, are engaged in using racist code words, while the Democrats are paragons of racial enlightenment:

Another classic code word — that hasn’t cropped up in this election yet — is “crime.” Like welfare, even though more whites commit crimes than blacks, the word is more associated with blacks who have historically been stereotyped as wild, violent, animalistic and immoral. As Michelle Alexander writes in The New Jim Crow, “What it means to be criminal in our collective consciousness has become conflated with what it means to be black, so the term white criminal is confounding, while the term black criminal is nearly redundant.” The classic example is President George H. W. Bush’s famous ad using inmate Willie Horton as a way to portray Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis as soft on crime and thus unable to protect us from wild black criminals.

There’s also the cornucopia of terms and concepts created to de-Americanize Barack Obama, from calling him “Muslim” or “Socialist” to Romney surrogates like John Sununu saying things like, “I wish this President would learn how to be an American.”  There is also a return to birtherism, with Romney recently joking, “Nobody’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.” The subtext of all this is: Obama, like other blacks, is not one of “us.” He is other.

Do Democrats use racial code? No. The Democratic party is a racially diverse coalition. There would be no value to playing this game. In fact, the party has risked alienating white working class voters by fighting for people of color, a tightrope perhaps best symbolized by President Johnson signing the 1964 Voting Rights Act and then famously, and presciently, saying to an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.”

Continue reading...

14 Responses to You Racist Republicans!

  • I have worked all my life from the US Submarine Service 30+ years ago till now in commercial nuclear energy with people of all manner of skin color, national origin and religion. Some have been white, some black, some brown, some yellow, some red. Some have been born in the US and some immigrated from Nigeria, Iraq, India, Germany, Lebanon, etc. Some have been Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taosits, etc. I have never ever thought of any of them with the “N” word in my head. There has been one and only one man who has elicited that thought within my head, and that is Barack Hussein Obama. I now have to go back to Confession (again). We may not be responsible for unbidden faults, but I am not a racist and I will not allow a Teflon coated, tin hated, narcissistic demagogue of sexual filth and depravity turn me into one.

  • Toure’s a token who can only get attention by reading this typical race-obsessed stuff, but i will say i’m not a fan of the “Democrats as the party of segregation” argument because of the changing coalitions/ideologies of the two parties. it’s accurate to say that the Democrats used to have a Southern segregationist _wing_ that LBJ started to alienate in 1964, but those people don’t really have much in common with the post-1972 Democratic Party.

    i also don’t like this argument cuz, for example, Goldwater got 87% of the Mississippi vote in 1964, you had future Southern shifts to the GOP in national elections, and it sets up the argument that the GOP only won over these people due to racism, when really they likely had conservative views on a lot of other issues. in any case a vote’s a vote, regardless of any prejudice someone might have, just so long as no one political party’s fanning the flames.

  • also the “racially diverse” current Democratic coalition as if that makes it Morally Pure and Right — Toure doesn’t get that’s part of the _problem_ with the current Democatic Party, this constant view of white working-class people as rubes, and how it’s really just cobbled together identity politics.

    it might not be an electoral problem for them right now, but it doesn’t make it attractive to me.

  • “but i will say i’m not a fan of the “Democrats as the party of segregation” argument because of the changing coalitions/ideologies of the two parties.”

    Little has changed JDP other than the Democrats have changed the skin colors they wish to use government power to benefit, or discriminate against. From its foundation the Republican party has held to the belief that the government may not discriminate between Americans on the basis of race, and Democrats have opposed this belief.

    “and it sets up the argument that the GOP only won over these people due to racism,”

    Which of course simply is not true. Republican dominance of the South was a fairly slow process and actually started with Eisenhower. It was helped by the mass industrialization of the South post World War II and a migration of Republicans from the North into areas of the South where the Republican party was almost non-existent. Republican inroads picked up steam with the Culture Wars of the sixties, and the contempt that much of the Democrat Left demonstrated for the military, which enraged patriotic Southerners who have always fought in America’s wars out of all proportion to their percentage of the population.

    The truly rabid racists in the South, George Wallace comes to mind, tended to remain Democrats and that made sense, as most of them, except on the issue of race, tended to be Democrats on economic issues, etc. A good history of the transformation of the South into a solidly Republican region still needs to be written and it would be a fascinating tale. One overlooked feature currently is that more and more blacks in the South are beginning to vote Republican and run as Republicans. Artur Davis, the former black Democrat congressman from Alabama who spoke at the Republican convention, could be the harbinger of things to come.

  • Robert Wargas explais a great deal: “Since progressivism is largely a status game, in which people compete for social prestige by repeating a set of approved phrases and opinions to other status-seeking mandarins, it’s not surprising that some will go to sado-masochistic lengths to remain part of the alpha group. By now, the increasingly creepy tendency of using the word ‘white’ as a glib insult has become well established in left-wing commentary.”

  • Oh, it’s Saturday and it’s confession time.

    The following are racist code words (lots of racistt code words) that keep racing through my twisted mind:

    • “Median incomes”: These have fallen 7.3% since Obama took office, which translates into an average of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started, median incomes continued to fall, dropping $2,544, or 4.8%.
    • “Long-term unemployed”: More than three years into Obama’s recovery, 811,000 more still fall into this category than when the recession ended.
    • “Poverty”: The poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and economists think it may have hit 15.7% last year, highest since the 1960s.
    • “Food stamps”: There are 11.8 million more people on food stamps since Obama’s recovery started.
    • “Disability”: More than 1 million workers have been added to Social Security’s disability program in the last three years.
    • “Gas prices”: A gallon of gas cost $1.89 when Obama was sworn in. By June 2009, the price was $2.70. Today, I paid $4.05.
    • “Misery Index”: When Obama took office, the combination of unemployment and inflation stood at 7.83. Today it’s 9.71.
    • “Union membership”: Even unions are worse off under Obama, with membership dropping half a million between 2009 and 2011.
    • “Debt”: Everyone is far worse off if you just look at the national debt. It has climbed more than $5 trillion under Obama, crossing $16 trillion for the first time on Tuesday and driving the U.S. credit rating down.

    ETC.

  • “as most of them, except on the issue of race, tended to be Democrats on economic issues”

    i am not sure this is true. sure they might not have been Milton Friedman on economic issues but that doesn’t mean they were on the opposite side either.

    and Nixon wanted to get former Wallace votes in the 1972 election. that does not make him a “racist” it just makes him a politician.

    i just don’t buy this idea that Southern Democrats were McGovernites on everything except race. from what i can tell the shift of the South toward the GOP had to do with race (and it’s not as though anything to do with race is automatically an illegitimate issue — think crime rates at the time, forced busing) AND Southerners’ conservatism on other issues that hadn’t been in play as much during the FDR-LBJ coalition.

  • The shift to the GOP in the South has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the Marxist bent of the Democratic Party. It is that party which in time past supported slavery and racism, and it is that party which today supports the murder of the unborn and the filth of homosexual sodomy. Saying whites in the south went GOP because they hate blacks (wrong!) ignores that fact that the Dems want blacks enslaved to the teat of the public treasury forever and ever. The Democratic Party is evil. It touts diversity so long as it’s diversity of sexual filth. It touts freedom so long as its license to murder your unborn child. It is evil. The GOP isn’t the party of God, but the Democratic Party is the party of Satan and has been so since the 1800s.

  • “i just don’t buy this idea that Southern Democrats were McGovernites on everything except race.”

    They weren’t McGovernites but staunch New Deal Democrats. Many Democrats were farther to the left than FDR on economic issues. Think Huey Long for example. Issues on which Southerners were conservative, the military and cultural issues, simply were not political issues until the late Sixties and when they became issues the Democrat party by 1972 was on the wrong side. The rise of Jimmy Carter delayed the process, but it was the McGovern takeover of the party that was probably the most significant single factor in the transformation of the South into the Republican base.

  • well that’s sort of what i was saying. a combination of different things. i doubt Wallace Democrats were avid fans of abortion for example.

    i don’t mean to sound like i’m defending racism but it’s worth pointing out that certain racially-tinged issues of the ’60s — the radical turn of the civil rights movement in the late ’60s, War on Poverty programs that exacerbated problems, the crime rate — didn’t cut in the Democrats’ favor and voters, regardless of what their individual prejudices might’ve been, had every right to vote GOP on those grounds.

    like the Willie Horton thing Toure points out — what, are Republicans only allowed to hit Dems as soft-on-crime if it’s a white murderer we’re talking about? same as the recent welfare stuff. we’re supposed to believe that because some people have a negative association of poor black communities with welfare, the ads are racist, so therefore…Romney’s not allowed to make any welfare-related ads. actual discussion of the policy we’re talking about is totally dismissed.

  • I can almost guarantee that this white conservative republican, being a white kid in predominately black inner city Detroit Public schools, suffered more racism than probably 90% of blacks in my age group (46). That’s not a statement abpout blascks per se. It’s just stating a fact. Racism is more about character than it is about race. In fact, a lot of the violence we suffered at the hands of blacks was the result of the kind of race baiting that the left wing pseudo civil rights activists like Sharpton/Jackson et al. You can say that this is a bit personal to me.

    Today, the worst bigotry isn’t racial or ethnic, but ideological.

  • This is the same jerk who publicly accused Mitt Romney of the “[n-word]-ization of Obama” for which he was summarily dismissed. From MSNBC.

  • from what i can tell the shift of the South toward the GOP had to do with race

    Wrong. I’ve covered this in an earlier post, but it’s simply untrue to point to race as a reason for the south’s shift towards the GOP.

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/07/21/debunking-realignment-theory/

  • i mean — crime rates, forced busing, affirmative action, welfare/crummy War on Poverty progams…i have to think these were all issues at the time.

    and note that they’re all race-related issues where people could reasonably oppose the Democratic positions regardless of whether they had certain prejudices or not.

    anyway i was just citing race as _a_ factor from my knowledge, not the one and only.

9 Responses to Honey, You Didn’t Build That

  • Take away happiness of innocence and achievement in school, too.

    Ignore the national debt, so the kids won’t know what you aren’t doing for them.

    Vote for the one who doesn’t care about what his programs are doing to you and your children – as long as his kids are above it all.

    And, as long as people can, on the other hand, opt out of ‘family’ by planning ‘parenthood.

    And, for as long as there are somehow a few dollars printed out of thin air for the hungry voters.

    Watch your fellow Americans and children learning how to bully and hate from the spokesmedia recording and reporting on the Democrat party without a plan or accomplishment just talking down the ones who do.

  • The child’s molecules may have been scattered around the universe, UNTIL, until, our Creator created an immortal, original, innocent soul to direct the growth an being of the person. The video nailed it.

  • That brought tears to my eyes.

    I don’t know- I cry about everything anymore. I have eight grandchildren. Seems like we are up against it.

  • Anzlyne: Thank God for the gift of tears. Weeping is a gift from God. Crying is a loud complaint. I do both. St. Thomas Aquinas always wept when he received the Holy Eucharist. St. Monica prayed and wept for thirty years. The tears of a mother and grandmother are never wasted. Ask God to direct your tears.

  • Dumbing down, down, down.

    Its happening here too. Each week whenever I see my grandchildren, I ask them what they did at school during the week. Sometimes, they don’t remember – other times they say they did something that to me seemed pretty inane, so I do my little best to re-educate them.
    Fortunately, two of my granddaughters go to our local St.Mary’s Catholic primary school, and they stick firmly to proper education, and good orthodox Catholic teaching. Can’t say the same though, for our secondary school Aquinas College – I have heard of a few horror stories coming out of there. But its changing – the DRS is training for the diaconate. His faith is orthodox, but I keep telling him he’s still a “teacher”, imbued with some of the seeming vacuousness of that profession. 🙂

  • Right on! Just a quick plug for “Waiting for Superman,” an excellent look at teachers union’s gone wild. It has been out for awhile, however it is worth finding this documentary if you haven’t already viewed it. Bless our Nation God Almighty, and help us return to You as a people who give You Thanks for the graces we have received.
    Not all of our Nation gives you thanks, so please help us to convey the truths which are So needed in this time of great decision. Please Father….grant conversion to the unbelieving, and allow us Freedom of Religion & CONSCIENCE.

  • Right on! Just a quick plug for “Waiting for Superman,”

    Also check out The Cartel about the NJ school system. It’s streaming on Netflix last I checked.

Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!

Saturday, September 8, AD 2012

Something for the weekend.  After a fortnight of political conventions I thought it was appropriate to have one of the more popular campaign songs in American political history featured for our weekend song, Tippecanoe and Tyler Too, written by Alexander Coffman Ross, and sung endlessly by the Whigs during the 140 presidential campaign.  Perhaps one of the more vacuous campaigns in our nation’s history, the Whig’s rode to victory on William Henry Harrison’s status as a war hero at the battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 and during the War of 1812, and the poor economy presided over by Democrat Martin Van Buren.  Ironically John Tyler, who was as much an afterthought on the ticket as he is in the song, would serve out the term of Harrison after Harrison died after only 32 days in office.  John Tyler was a Democrat who had only recently converted to the Whig party.  As president he returned to his Democrat roots and had dreadful relations with the Whigs, who would certainly have impeached him but for their losing control of the House in the 1842 elections.  Astoundingly Tyler still has two living grandchildren.

Here is a rock version of the song:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!

  • Gee, they had attack ads way back then? I thought “incivility” was invented by Dick Cheney.

    Btw, the Little Magician gave as good as he got. I can’t find a video but here’s his song:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1840#Van_Buren

    Rockabye, baby, Daddy’s a Whig
    When he comes home, hard cider he’ll swig
    When he has swug
    He’ll fall in a stu
    And down will come Tyler and Tippecanoe.

    Rockabye, baby, when you awake
    You will discover Tip is a fake.
    Far from the battle, war cry and drum
    He sits in his cabin a’drinking bad rum.

    Rockabye, baby, never you cry
    You need not fear OF Tip and his Ty.
    What they would ruin, Van Buren will fix.
    Van’s a magician, they are but tricks.

  • A tragedy Thomas that there appears to be no video of that song! We will have to soldier on with this song about Van Buren:

Sandra Fluke and Our Broketastically Brokey-Broke Nation

Friday, September 7, AD 2012

At his best, there’s simply no one who writes like Mark Steyn.

So this is America’s best and brightest – or, at any rate, most expensively credentialed. Sandra Fluke has been blessed with a quarter-million dollars of elite education, and, on the evidence of Wednesday night, is entirely incapable of making a coherent argument. She has enjoyed the leisurely decade-long varsity once reserved for the minor sons of Mitteleuropean grand dukes, and she has concluded that the most urgent need facing the Brokest Nation in History is for someone else to pay for the contraception of 30-year-old children. She says the choice facing America is whether to be “a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn’t apply to our bodies and our voices” – and, even as the words fall leaden from her lips, she doesn’t seem to comprehend that Catholic institutions think their “voices” ought to have freedom, too, or that Obamacare seizes jurisdiction over “our bodies” and has 16,000 new IRS agents ready to fine us for not making arrangements for “our” pancreases and “our” bladders that meet the approval of the commissars. Sexual liberty, even as every other liberty withers, is all that matters: A middle-school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined. What a bleak and reductive concept of “personal freedom.”

America is so broketastically brokey-broke that one day, in the grim future that could be, society may even be forced to consider whether there is any meaningful return on investment for paying a quarter-million bucks to send the scions of wealth and privilege to school till early middle-age to study Reproductive Justice. But, as it stands right now, a Cornell and Georgetown graduate doesn’t understand the central reality of the future her elders have bequeathed her. There’s no “choice” in the matter. It’s showing up whatever happens in November. All the election will decide is whether America wants to address that reality, or continue to live in delusion – like a nation staggering around with a giant condom rolled over its collective head.

As funny as it is, it almost makes one want to weep.

Read the rest.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Sandra Fluke and Our Broketastically Brokey-Broke Nation

  • One of the most dismaying features of contemporary liberalism is how it infantilizes its adherents. Sandra Fluke is a first rate example of this process of transforming adults into perpetual wards of the State. That the Democrat powers that be thought that parading this embodiment of “gimme gimme” liberalism would sway sane voters is a testament that the epithet socialist that is tossed at them vastly understates the religious devotion to Holy Mother the State that is obviously now the guiding belief of the party of Jackson.

  • Mark is wonderful. Contrasting the naive nature of Sandra Fluk with our elders and anscestors that made societal advances one painful and slow step at a time is wonderful. In ages past, someone like Sandra would have been dragged out of the gathering. She would not have been given the privelage to banter after the first few minutes. Today, she is the darling of the liberal left. I say, let her speak. She may do more good for conservative growth than you think.

  • stuff like this is why i appreciated Cardinal Dolan’s use of the phrase “ordered liberty” in his benedictions — i think he’s the only prominent figure i’ve ever heard use a phrase like that recently. Republicans like to invoke how we’re a nation of liberty, and they obviously see it in different terms than the personal libertinism of the Left, but because neither side does a ton of in-depth discussion in politics about what exactly our conceptions of liberty are, Democrats inevitably go “you say you’re for liberty, well why don’t you support [insert Democratic proposal here]”

  • Even the grand pooh bah of world socialism H G Wells was deathly afraid that socialism would degenerate into a society of slackers and infantile wants. His book The Time Machine was intended as a stark warning of that with its pretty but feeble ELOI. Even the degenerate Morlocks who worked in a lowbrow way were too much for the Eloi to fight against.

    It’s ironic the Sandra advances a position that is almost identical with the old male chauvinist idea of the available woman who could be used without consequence and attachment. Her boyfriends (she has never indicated that she was in a monogamous relationship) apparently have no responsibility to her. She is smart enough to realize though that she could never make it as a conventional lawyer; her only hope is as a politico in some blue state.

  • Good post, Paul Z. Aside comment: for the life of me, I can’t understand why any red-blooded American male would even be able to muster the physical straightness (as it were) required to necessitate Sandra Fluke’s need for contraceptive. Looking at her face and appearance, one’s ability for reproductive activity would surely shrivel up in disgust and revulsion for nothing attractive therein resides.

  • “It’s ironic the Sandra advances a position that is almost identical with the old male chauvinist idea of the available woman who could be used without consequence and attachment.”

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I don’t know how many times I have tried to explain to my fellow women that contraceptives and “consequence free” sex turn a great many of us into mere receptacles. It drives me up a wall to see how so many women blatantly advertise their sexual availability, in some cases literally trolling for sex, and in the next breath (or post if they’re on the interwebs) will complain about being lonely and not being able to find a good man who loves her for who she is. And if you suggest that maybe these ladies should keep their lady bits to themselves for a while, you’re a “hater” and a prude. It boggles the mind!

  • Rozin: ” She is smart enough to realize though that she could never make it as a conventional lawyer; her only hope is as a politico in some blue state.”

    Because unless Fluke’s life is gounded in TRUTH, Fluke and her overlords and minions, and everything they touch, will fail.

    This one requires three (3) Hail Marys

  • If I were Sandra Fluke’s father I would be so heart sick with shame, I would have an emotional breakdown.

  • etcera, etcera, and so forth: Twenty three million people, unemployed, and Sandra Fluke tells us that the people owe her birth control; speaking of being “out of touch”. The War on Women is nothing more than a war on reality. The human being must take back his dignity and his taxes.

  • “… What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they’re not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That’s not a stand, it’s a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool…”

    ~ Peggy Noonan
    http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

  • Yeah Greg, I know I would be pretty heartbroken and feeling dishonored if she were my daughter too. When I read your comment, my mind immediately jumped to some lyrics by my favorite band, Marillion, and I wonder if they would apply.

    She was a wallflower at sixteen
    She’ll be a wallflower at thirty-four
    Her mother called her beautiful
    Her daddy said a whore

  • JA: I may start to read Peggy Noonan. I stopped reading in 2008 when she went “all in” against Governor Palin and McCain.

    Greg: If that was me, I’d say, “I always thought she looked a lot like the mailman.”

  • RL says: “some lyrics by my favorite band, Marillion, and I wonder if they would apply.’

    She was a wallflower at sixteen
    She’ll be a wallflower at thirty-four
    Her mother called her beautiful
    Her daddy said a whore.

    At sixteen, the child is an un-emancipated person, a minor in a court of law, and daddy don’t do nutthin but pray for her. Maybe, “her daddy” needs the prayers more. Pornified culture be damned. RL, don’t go there.

    Mary

  • Thanks for the advice Mary. But since the subject wasn’t a sixteen year old’s sexual escapades (“was” is past tense, and the reference was to a particular man’s actions), and the subject matter of the album is the very fallen state of a man who realized that his life of licentiousness not only failed to bring happiness, but destruction and despair. He ended up finding that the goodness contained in his childhood was the answer to his happiness. But again, thanks for the warning. I’ll be more careful about my consumption of the pornified culture in the future.

Timely New Report on Catholic Women and Contraception

Friday, September 7, AD 2012

After a good long tirade around the kitchen last night during Caroline Kennedy’s “as a Catholic woman” speech, I tried to think of what will come next in the following weeks and months. There’s a report I’ve been promoting this week, and the timing is undoubtedly providential.

One thing I’ve noticed about controversy: It’s a process by which things can change. People are listening now, it’s our turn to take the stage.

Mary Rice Hasson, J.D., a woman I am proud to call a friend, is a Fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington D.C. She is also the director of the Women, Faith, and Culture project together with Michele M. Hill who has been active in apostolates within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. These ladies have issued a preliminary report, What Catholic Women Think About Faith, Conscience, and Contraception, in which 824 Church-going Catholic women ages 18-54 were surveyed. (*Be sure to note how that is defined in the report.)

While the data indicates that most Catholic women do not fully support the Church’s teachings on contraception, the results also do not show the sweeping rejection of Church teaching the media portrays either. The picture is more nuanced. From the website, Women, Faith and Culture: Exploring What Catholic Women Think:

Catholic Women and Faith
90% say faith is important to daily life
72% rely on homilies to learn the faith
28% have gone to Confession within the year

Catholic Women and Contraception
33% think the Church says “yes” to contraception
13% say “yes” to Church teaching
37% say “no” to Church teaching
44% say “no, but maybe …” to Church teaching

The report shows that about one-third of Church-going Catholic women incorrectly believe that couples have the right to decide for themselves the moral acceptability of contraception – regardless of Church teaching. When Church teaching was explained, 44% were receptive to learning more. These results suggest the problem is in part catechetical, and that women want more instruction.

Church-going Catholic women fall into three groups, the researchers found: 1) “the faithful” who say “yes” to Church teaching, 2) “the dissenters” who say “no” to it, and 3) the “soft middle” who are reluctant, but receptive to more information.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Timely New Report on Catholic Women and Contraception

  • It is consoling to know women are “receptive” to learning Church teachings. There is no doubt, if we obtain our catechesis from Sunday sermons we are left wanting. Personally only recall two homilies touching on the topic in the past ten years. Aside from the spiritual implications the lack of information given women regarding the physical effects is equally disturbing. I think of the California smelt controversy and ask myself where the outrage is regarding chemical contraception.

    Oral Contraceptives have been classified by the World Health Organization as Class 1 Carcinogens. This is the same class as asbestos after dozens of studies found they are linked to breast and cervical cancer. Frequently oral contraceptives contain high doses of ethinyloestradiol linked to prostate cancer and the sexual reprogramming in wild fish.

    The effects on the soul, body, and environment are recognized and documented–why the silence?

  • The thing that frustrates me about the “soft middle” is the lack of intellectual curiousity. I grew up knowing the Catholic Church’s position on birth control was the reason the world suffered from overpopulation and economic ruin. (I grew up in a basically agnostic household with a few trappings of the Episcopal Church here and there at Christmas time.)

    And when it looked like joining the Church was a real possibility, the first thing I did was start looking for the reasons why the Church was so down on what was so obviously a great advance for mankind. While I didn’t have to look too hard (the proper junk mail advertising Scott Hahn’s cassette tape on the series magically appeared in my mail box), that was before Google. I had to pay for the tapes and wait snail mail.

    Yes, I know people are living very busy, very hectic lives, and I don’t run Google searches on every little thing either myself. On the other hand, the bishops don’t declare a Fortnight of Prayer for XYZ cause very often or get excited about things in quite the same way as they have with HHS mandate. I would think the “soft middle” might doing some of their own research on the issue.

    Am I being too harsh here?

  • I am a Catholic woman 63 years old. I was catechized in the 50’s and I am still waiting for the church to address the role of husbands and men in the contraception/abortion problem. I was threatened by abandonment after the birth of my daughter, at age 23, by my husband. He wanted to be sterilized and I felt I had no choice in the matter. Nice little, complacent wife, obedient to my spouse. What about men who beg their wives to have sex knowing that they will become pregnant, and why will the church NOT catechize the men who do this. How about the abusive spouse? The ones who force their wives. Why is it always the woman who is responsible for the contraception, Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, when she could have been killed by men, it is only recently that the church claims that the man who she was with was there among the abusers.

  • Rita, DJ, and Silvia,

    First, DJ, no you are not being too harsh.

    This is a good place to talk it out and share experiences and ideas. The women surveyed told us what they think, so what can we do?

    I think it is very important to get this report into the hands of priests. I can image it’s hard to talk about reproductive issues from the pulpit, but if they knew how much people wanted them to address those issues, maybe they’d be more confident to do so.

    Thank you for your responses!

  • Sylvia: I hear you! That is another area I think the bishops could do a bit better on. I remember reading an article, I think it was in a Christian magazine, not specifically Catholic, and the fellow writing it was looking back on his life (the author was in his 60’s maybe?) and he mentioned about hanging out with the “loose women” not the ones he would choose for a spouse. Wow. Hyprocracy in action. On a somewhat more encouraging note, when I subscribed to a “traditionist Catholic newspaper” this one noted “Trad” had extremely harsh words for the type of man you describe. Wish I had kept the article. He pulled no punches.

  • I have a bit of a different perspective. I was a badly catechized Catholic when I married. My wife was Protestant. In our marriage prep class, the priest basically said it was okay to fornicate prior to marriage. My mother had been told by a priest that she SHOULD use artificial birth control after the eighth child. A friend told me he had been told by a priest it was okay to contracept.

    Then came the internet, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now I could find resources that had never been revealed to me by anyone responsible for my catechesis as a youth, or by priests who should have known better in my young adulthood. By this time, my wife and I had four children, all while using artificial birth control that failed to work. I became convinced it was wrong after reading Humanae Vitae. Then my wife converted. She became convinced of the truth of Catholic teaching in this manner. Now we have eight children, and are a bit mournful of the fact that we likely won’t have any more.

    I blame poor catechesis, which contributed to my falling away from the Church as well as failing to follow Church teachings. I can tell you from my own experience that what the study labels as a “faithful Catholics” are not. It may also not be their fault that they are not. If you are faithful, you go to Mass every Sunday (unless you have a grave reason), and follow Church teaching. If you’re not faithful, you lapse on either or both of those. I was not a faithful Catholic when I was younger, although I was convinced that I was, and others were convinced that I was. The study is flawed in its methodology in that it uses self-description rather than objective measures for who is a faithful Catholic. If you include people who both attend Mass every Sunday (unless they have a grave reason for missing it), and people who accept Church teaching, you will have far different results.

    The Church needs to focus on catechesis. Effective, passionate, strong catechesis. The world is giving a message that is opposed to Church teaching, and we need to be louder and more persistent than the world if we want to change things.

  • I heartily second everything A.S. said above. I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling – 8 in grammar school and then a Jesuit High School. Not once during that time do I ever recall being taught about the Church’s teachings on contraception, and if it was mentioned it was probably questioned. Rarely is it ever discussed during homilies, though they are more willing to tackle the topic at my current parish than anywhere else I’ve been.

    The statistics sadden me, but that lumpy middle is just begging for some good catechism.

  • “I think of the California smelt controversy and ask myself where the outrage is regarding chemical contraception.”

    There are some people who embrace and even teach natural family planning or “fertility awareness”, NOT for religious or moral reasons, but for the very reason that it is natural and does not require the use of artificial hormones, chemicals or devices to “fix” a bodily function that is not “broken.” I am surprised there are not more of them, but, I suppose it’s kind of nice to know they exist at all. It seems to me that if the ecology/back to nature crowd really practiced what they preached, they would be very receptive to the concept of NFP.

    “I am still waiting for the church to address the role of husbands and men in the contraception/abortion problem.”

    In my experience, when the issues of contraception and abortion are addressed from the pulpit (it doesn’t happen very often, but I have to say that of late, it IS happening with some regularity) neither men nor women are singled out; it is aimed at everyone. The issue of what to do when spouses adamantly disagree about the issue — one spouse desires to follow Church teaching and the other refuses, leaving what appears to be an intractable choice of either cooperating in evil or breaking up the marriage — also needs to be addressed, but more likely than not it is usually done privately in confession or spiritual direction and not from the pulpit.

  • Elaine Krewer: “I am still waiting for the church to address the role of husbands and men in the contraception/abortion problem.”

    Husbands do not use contraception, men do. Maybe, I ought to call then males or such. When a man services his lust, enlarges his sex addiction and uses another person, which is what contraception is, it is not so much joy, it is misery incorporated. If someone does not love you enough to want more of you, your relationship is not love. “My husband uses contraception, not I”, often heard in the confessional; then it would appear that the male is off the hook with “My wife takes birth control pills, not I.” These two did not become one. Can there be a marriage, if they do not become one?

    Abortion? “My girlfriend has a abortion, not I.” The father’s DNA is thrown into the garbage with his genes and seed and offspring and our posterity, and the court says it is OK, so, the idiot (servicing only his id) says it must be OK.

  • Science has determined, (can’t provide link) that when a woman carries a child, some of the child’s cells enter the woman’s body and reside there. Now, the woman carries the child’s DNA along with the father’s DNA. The two literally become one according to the laws of nature and nature’s God. Subsequent children, too, will have a place in their mother’s body. “Unconditional love”

  • “I think of the California smelt controversy and ask myself where the outrage is regarding chemical contraception.” and the five legged amphibians, and the emasculation of every water drinking Amercan man. The culmination of militant feminism: the eradication of testosterone.

  • Mary,

    I’ve heard that too. I think it’s beautiful, and it means for women who lost children before birth, that they are part of her even still because they existed.

    Also I learned not too long ago that the word “zygote” comes from the Greek word meaning “yoked” as in “joined together.”

    “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-9)

    I think some women are afraid what it will mean if they accept Church teaching fully, and they are afraid to face their past sins. (Speaking from experience.)

  • Thank you, Stacy, for your admirable work and words. “I think some women are afraid what it will mean if they accept Church teaching fully, and they are afraid to face their past sins. (Speaking from experience.)

    (You speak for me too, Stacy)

  • Pingback: What do Catholic women think about contraception? You might be surprised
  • You can spin this anyway you want, however, only 13% say “YES” to Church teaching. I find that extremely disturbing, what other Church teachings about faith and morals do they reject? Abortion? Women Priests? Homosexual Marriage? I would’ve also asked those questions and the most important question, do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist-Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity? I think you would’ve seen some similarity between those who accept Church teaching and those who believe in the Real Presence.
    90% say living there daily faith is important, yet only 28% have been to confession once in a year-what faith are these women talking about? It most certainly isn’t the Catholic faith.
    The Bishops have spent the past 50 years teaching everything BUT what’s important, The Bishops have failed and should hang there collective heads in shame.

  • The large majority of the Vatican Birth Control commission in 1968 said the pill was OK. This commission was appointed by Paul VI and consisted of Cardinals, bishops, theologians and married couples. [it included JPII who stayed in Poland].
    Humanae Vitae was issued instead of the vast majority advise.
    Homilies are to be about the Sundays reading. What scripture do you see about birth control?
    http://catholicsforcontraception.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9:majreport&catid=6:chrchdocs

  • I was one of those catholic women. grew up in a catholic home, went to mass every sunday. never never heard anything growing up on NFP, or the WHY artificial contraception was wrong. at somepoint yes did hear it was ( not from my parents who were more concerned with whether my oldersister would be able to finish college before the babies would start coming when she got married- ) that was the message we got- dont have babies too soon, else you wont be able to work outside the home and pay for that house we had bought right before we got married. We did start out using NFP as newlyweds but did not understand the whole- open to life- thing. we looked at it more as ‘catholic” birthcontrol. birthcontrol that failed- or more actually it was us who cheated the rules and sure enough I was pregnant 4 months after our wedding. well as we had just bought a house that took both our incomes, and mine was the only job with health benefits, i went back to work and on the pill. at our Engaged encounter in 1990 we had maybe 5 min of NFP at most and then were given a letter from the US CATHOLIC bishops stating that one could ‘pray about it, and make up ones concience in the matter of using artificial contraception or not.” and of course we had all the right reasons not to have another child right away. looking back I can see that once you make that excuse, you can justify any reason. neither my husband or I ever took the time to read humane vitae, or anything else on this issue. we thought ourselves ‘faithful catholics”. we went to mass every sunday. our children went to the local catholic school. we even prayed.
    but just as Pope Pius warned, it destroyed things between us.
    selfishness set in. I felt used.
    now too late I do understand why the church in its wisdom teaches what it does.
    i took the time now to read all those things I should have read as an engaged woman.
    instead of shopping for wedding stuff. Now I grieve the children we could have and should have brought into the world.
    i went to confession but still I cannot undo this mistake.
    I think it is an opportunity for the clergy, the bishops to teach church teaching in a way that was not done during the late 60s, 70s,80s. they need to unappologetically preach this from the pulpit. my new parish does. Yet my prior catholic parish I attended for 25 years and NEVER heard the word contraception.
    so many women of those times have told me that this priest or that told them it was ok to use the pill ” in their circumstance”.
    these priests let us down.
    of course we bear the full brunt of responsibility becuase we could have and should have gone to the source itself to learn the truth.

  • I went to CCD classes then a catholic all girls high school. all we learned was a feminist version of watered down catholicsm. definetely never heard about contraception being wrong.
    students in catholic high schools should not graduate without having read the encyclicals on human life, on marriage. understanding NFP. Reading Pope Pius warnings of what will happen- and has happened once the contraception is accepted.

  • Feisco Eddie,

    Yes, it was the opinion of most, but NOT the Holy Father, contraception was permissible. As you point out Paul VI answer was Humanae Vitae. I don’t know your perspective but in this document I see the working of the Holy Spirit as promised in Jn 16:13.

    Birth Control and Scripture. I am certain you know the Christ’s Church does not rely totally on scripture for Her teaching but was given the authority to bind and loose in Mt 18:19. Personally, I have never doubted contraception is addressed beginning in the first book of Genesis. God‘s command was increase and multiply, but that is not the verse that made a lasting impression…that would have been the fate of poor little old Onan further on in Genesis 38. His punishment for what we call coitus interruptus was DEATH. Somehow it struck me perhaps birth control was displeasing to the Lord.

    As an aside.. the people I know who have had practiced NFP are still married 30, 40, 50 years later. Coincidence??

  • Rita: Thank you it bears repeating:

    “God‘s command was increase and multiply, but that is not the verse that made a lasting impression…that would have been the fate of poor little old Onan further on in Genesis 38. His punishment for what we call coitus interruptus was DEATH. Somehow it struck me perhaps birth control was displeasing to the Lord.

    Bringing children, others persons, into the world by doing the will of God, not the will of man, only, and exclusively doing the will of God, gets us to heaven.

  • Frisco Eddie, the Virgin Mary said “Let it be done unto me according to Thy word.”, not “Let it be done unto me according to my word.” Joseph was inclined to “put her away quietly”, but told by an angel that he should not. This is the example we should follow. This is where scripture addresses the proper attitude to marriage and children. If you’re looking for St. Paul to tell the Corinthians not to use a rubber, or Moses bringing down the ten commandments, and engraved in stone is an admonition against a tubal ligation or vasectomy, you’re going to be disappointed because artificial birth control is a new development.

  • If you really want to know what Catholic women think, a good place to start would be with women who have actually walked the walk and talked the talk by practicing NFP for many years. Having grown up in a very orthodox Catholic family situation and then attended what is considered one of the most orthodox Catholic liberal arts colleges in the country, all the people I grew up with and all my college friends have used NFP. We were all determined to live out HV in our lives.

    Twenty years later, many of the marriages are in shambles, and most couples are hanging onto NFP mostly because of fear of burning in hell.

    Look, I’m not saying this to be obnoxious; I’m really serious about this. It’s time to address the elephant in the room: many couples who DO practice NFP are, 20 years later, exhausted, broke, overwhelmed with their large families, and hardly a shining light to the contraceptors surrounding them in the pews.

    The Church needs to find a way to convince people that using contraceptives actually hurts Jesus Christ. I’m a well-read Catholic, I’ve read HV, and I know the Church’s teachings. I also know what stressors have resulted in many marriages (including my own) due to following those teachings. Until the Church can find a way to convince people that taking on those stressors is worth it somehow, it’s going to keep failing to convince the masses that NFP use for 2-3 decades is the way to go for the majority of couples. I know a lot of Catholic couples who have been married for decades; I know very few–if any–of them who would say that NFP use has been a bonding experience. Most of them are holding on only because they figure the stressors of practicing it are better than burning in hell.

    I’m afraid that this is not an argument that is going to persuade the up-and-coming generation of young Catholic women, who likely will have a hard time believing that using a condom with their husband is going to consign to the same eternity of hellfire that will be populated by child molester, serial killers, and rapists.

    When I was young and totally on fire for the Church’s teachings about marriage and NFP, I honestly believed the previous generationsof women that had declared “no, thanks” to it were just more ignorant than I. Decades later, I am realizing it is more likely that they saw what their mothers and grandmothers had lived through when following the teachings and didn’t want the same for themselves.

    I actually love the crunchy aspect of NFP. But crunchiness only goes so far (I love the crunchiness of eating all organic, too–but I can’t afford it), and when the price gets too high, you will likely find that even women who want to believe in the Church’s teachings will end up making choices not in accord with them, just to survive and get by in this life. Most couples cannot handle large families well (I’ve seen enough behind the scenes to know of what I speak), and most women I know, despite having taking classes in CCL, Creighton, etc, just don’t have consistent enough signs over the long-term of many decades to avoid having surprise pregnancies while using NFP.

    Until the real experiences of many of us who have walked the walk are understood and explored, I’m afraid that finding out “what women think” isn’t going to make a whole lot of a difference. There is so much inauthenticity in the circles I have grown up in because these couples WANT to be good examples to the rest of the world so they pretend all is rosy with their NFP families. The reality is far different much of the time, but unless you’ve know these faithful Catholic women for years and have their trust, you are not likely to get the real story.

    I hear enough of the real stories of those Catholics really trying to live HV to know that all the talk of TOB in the world isn’t likely to change the minds or hearts of the masses on contraception any time too soon. Find a way to convince people that Jesus Christ is hurt by contraceptive use but thrilled by NFP use, and perhaps you can make some headway. I’ve read all the books and still find myself unconvinced of that, to be honest. In some ways, I think the Church had a better chance when they were more consistent with what they taught in all the centuries before: that NFP was only to be used in very serious circumstances rather than being the best thing since sliced bread. It might have been a hard teaching, but I think that now that NFP is touted as the be-all for Catholic marriage, it’s going to be much harder to convince people that contraceptives are problematic. At least back then there seemed to be more room for acknowledgment that NFP can be less than fantastic for marriages. Now you’re considered to have something wrong with you as a couple if you don’t find it just the most wonderful thing ever. It’s really no wonder so many people who find NFP use has been a huge strain on their marriages over the decades keep their mouths shut about it.

  • “There is so much inauthenticity in the circles I have grown up in because these couples WANT to be good examples to the rest of the world so they pretend all is rosy with their NFP families…. It might have been a hard teaching, but I think that now that NFP is touted as the be-all for Catholic marriage, it’s going to be much harder to convince people that contraceptives are problematic. At least back then there seemed to be more room for acknowledgment that NFP can be less than fantastic for marriages.”

    Marie, you might be onto something there. I see (at least on the internet) similar attitudes with regard to homeschooling and attendance at Traditional Latin Masses — if you try them and don’t come away thinking they are absolutely the most wonderful things ever, you get the impression there must be something wrong with you.

    I guess the bottom line is that there is never going to be a magic fix that guarantees that you marriage will always be happy, that your children will grow up to be saints and/or genuises, that you our your spouse will never be tempted to throw in the towel and look for greener pastures with someone else, etc. Trying to “sell” NFP, homeschooling, Latin Mass, TOB, or anything else as such a “fix” is bound to fail.

  • “the people I know who have had practiced NFP are still married 30, 40, 50 years later. Coincidence??”

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence, but, it might be a chicken and egg kind of situation (pardon the pun) — did these couples stay married because they practiced NFP, or did they practice NFP because they were morally conscientious people who would have stayed married anyway?

  • Alphatron Shinyskullus:

    ” or Moses bringing down the ten commandments, and engraved in stone is an admonition against a tubal ligation or vasectomy,” Actually, there is engraved in stone in the Fifth Commandment an admonition that prohibits unecessary surgery.

  • Am I alone in finding an eerie similarity between the “Truce of 1968,” as George Weigal calls it, when the Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington should lift canonical penalties against those priests whom he had disciplined for their public dissent from Humanae Vitae and the “Peace of Clement IX” during the Jansenist controversy?

    In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.

    In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In the Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.

    The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.

    Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?

  • Not all women get pregnant readily. I was an exception. I have eleven children–needless to say we did not use contraception. We took things as they came. Now at 94 years old, I have eleven children who care about me and see that I have everything i need, My husband has been gone for six years and we all still miss him. Because I had two pair of twins, the Dr. thought I ovulated twice a month–they were fraternal, so using the rhythm method was not successful. We managed and all our children were well fed, learned to work, and all of them who wanted to were able to extend their education. With Jack and I, artificial birth control was not an optiion.

    I would not change my life for any one else I know.

Clint Eastwood: Mission Accomplished!

Friday, September 7, AD 2012

 

Clint Eastwood gives a fascinating interview on his empty chair lambasting of Obama at last week’s Republican convention:

For five days after he thrilled or horrified the nation by talking to an empty chair representing Obama on the night Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for president, Eastwood remained silent while pundits and critics debated whether his remarks, and the rambling way he made them, had helped or hurt Romney’s chances of winning in November.

But in a wide-ranging interview with The Pine Cone Tuesday from his home in Pebble Beach, he said he had conveyed the messages he wanted to convey, and that the spontaneous nature of his presentation was intentional, too.

“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”

Eastwood’s appearance at the convention came after a personal request from Romney in August, soon after Eastwood endorsed the former Massachusetts governor at a fundraiser in?Sun Valley, Idaho. But it was finalized only in the last week before the convention, along with an agreement to build suspense by keeping it secret until the last moment.

Meanwhile, Romney’s campaign aides asked for details about what Eastwood would say to the convention.

“They vett most of the people, but I told them, ‘You can’t do that with me, because I don’t know what I’m going to say,’” Eastwood recalled.

And while the Hollywood superstar has plenty of experience being adored by crowds, he said he hasn’t given a lot of speeches and admitted that, “I really don’t know how to.” He also hates using a teleprompter, so it was settled in his mind that when he spoke to the 10,000 people in the convention hall, and the millions more watching on television, he would do it extemporaneously.
“It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen,” Eastwood said. “I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Clint Eastwood: Mission Accomplished!

  • When half its delegates publicly denied God three times, the DNC showed itself and its leader for exactly the empty chair Clint Eastwood used.

  • Actually both of these memorable moments were unscripted. Maybe that’s why they were memorable.

  • Don’t expect cartoons or jokes about the ’empty chair’ to go away till the election. To the having over half denying God three times, we might want to take note of the larger number of athiest and Muslims who were at the convention with their own committees and opportunities to speak to seperate groups.
    The video of Clint Eastwood and the closing prayer of Timothy Cardinal Dolan are saved links for me.

  • Joe Citizen was like the wind blowing away the fog for some of us other citizens.

    An uplifting relief to have a moment of humor, common sense, and truth about reality.

    Government can’t run on no budget, like a car won’t with an empty gas tank.

    Government can’t go on with nothing to give (except laws passed inefficiently for sex and drugs) ; not telling people about the trouble right down the road that they can’t handle without money to give out to people.

    I remember Rowdy Yates was the one who always scouted out trouble down the trail and dealt with it. He’s a hero still as Joe Citizen in 2012.

  • I just watched Eastwood’s speech for the first time…and the problem is?

Two Memorable Events From Last Night

Friday, September 7, AD 2012

 

Two events from last night stand out.  First, Timothy Cardinal Dolan praying for the unborn at the Democrat Convention in his closing prayer.  Just such an eventuality is why the Democrat powers that be didn’t want the Cardinal to be there to begin with.  Good for the Cardinal.

Second, Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan, doing the best Howard Dean parody I have ever seen.  ( The impact is somewhat blemished when one recalls that GM is facing bankruptcy again.  Oh well.)

And that was that, nothing else of note.  Bye Democrats.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Two Memorable Events From Last Night

  • One, “Honey Boo Boo”, her sisters, and her mother went swimming.

    Two, “Honey Boo Boo”, her sisters, and her mother ate (lots of) barbecue.

    Memorable.

    No, wait!

    Three, “Honey Maa Maa” weighted herself. She’s down to 308 lbs.

    That was more memorable than anything that occurred in Charlotte.

  • I watched none of it.

    Courageous bloggers felt duty-bound . . .

    Legal Insurrection/Prof. Jacobson had some tweets:

    “Playing the class warfare really hard, the only war he doesn’t want to end . . . ”

    “The strawman cometh – false choices from a demagogue . . . “

  • Never underestimate your opponent. Obama’scontempt for the intelligence of his constituents has led him to underestimate the will of the people to have good and just government.

    You were right, Donald, Obama does not make a second rate senator.

  • The DNC is in full panic mode. At least last time they had the lackluster Bush to point at. Now the Left is disintegrating before our eyes. If the GOP loses this one, it will be a dimension of suckitude no one has ever seen before.

  • Cardinal Dolan’s prayer was wonderful…” those waiting to be born”. I suspect he wasn’t invited out for drinks afterward.

  • Dick Morris’ analysis was also good. Don’t know if one can find it on http://www.dickmorris.com.

  • This morning Bill Bennett was saying that the speech exhibited a bit of “sympathy” rather than confidence.

    Woe is me, look at what I inherited. I’ve tried my best, give me a bit more time. Etc., etc.

    I think Bill Bennett is right.

    Those listening to the speech came away feeling sorry for Obama and want to help. Not exactly inspiring confidence in the man.

    Contrast that with Paul Ryan saying, “Yes, We Can Do This” to “Woe is me”.

    Love it.

  • I am very proud of the Cardinal. He went straight at them and didn’t flinch.

  • Anybody conversant with the catch-phrases and mots-du-jour of the current election cycle would have to admit that he got 3 or 4 good jabs in, even if they were wrapped in a down pillow. Nicely done, Cardinal Dolan. You spoke to more than just the crowd assembled there, and we heard you.

As a Catholic Pro-Abort Woman

Thursday, September 6, AD 2012

Bravo to Bill O’Reilly for taking note of Caroline Kennedy’s phrase “as a Catholic woman” before she attacked pro-life laws passed around the country in legislatures controlled by Republicans.  O’Reilly recognized this as a direct attack on the Catholic Church.  Of course this is all part of the Democrat party’s attempt to promote a de facto schism in the Church in America for political advantage.  As I have noted many times this isn’t merely an election year for American Catholics.  This is an Elijah on Mount Carmel year.  A time of choosing is upon us.

Continue reading...

81 Responses to As a Catholic Pro-Abort Woman

  • The dear Cardinal will need to hear confessions tonight. There are over a dozen CINO’s who need to be forgiven.

  • the problem being they don’t think they are doing anything wrong..May God’s mercy be upon them!

  • “as a Catholic woman” !!! unbelievable. how could she be so confused.

    I hope others in the media will join Bill O’R in pointing this out.

    this is incoherent thinking! dopey.

  • This Democrat Party is in the face of the Catholic Church. Why? How did this happen? And Catholics make up the single, largest voting block for the pro-abortion party! What makes those Catholics think they are not sinning staying in the Democrat Party just like those who join the Nazi Party or the KKK?

  • In that second clip, she said “you know” so many times, that I’m surprised she had anything to say – if , y’know, we already know.
    What an illitierate – and she thinks she can get into the US Senate? God forbid.

  • “This Democrat Party is in the face of the Catholic Church. Why? How did this happen?”

    Please, allow me to introduce you to the US Catholic Bishops. God have mercy on their souls.

  • Pingback: Bishop Robert Finn Tuscany Prize for Catholic Fiction Beards | Big Pulpit
  • it’s also the nonchalant, zombie-like way she says it. very creepy.

    i have no idea what JFK’s position would’ve been since it wasn’t a national issue when he was president…i tend to think, possibly cynically, he would’ve followed the same trajectory as his brother though i don’t know for sure. maybe his liberalism would’ve superseded his Catholicism. that seems to be the case with most of these folks with very few exceptions.

    as an aside i saw a clip of Crist and had to roll my eyes too at the “GOP left me” canard, where he referred to Reagan’s “optimism.” this is the moderate/liberal revisionism, where the most conservative president in our post-WWII history (who liberals hated with a passion and likely still do but don’t let on as much) is reduced to some generic patriotic symbol. well optimism and “pragmatism” of course. you notice when Democrats die they get lauded for their principles? it’s OK for them to be ideologues cuz it’s the right ideology. Jonah Goldberg’s made some good points on this.

  • A divorce Catholic who remarries cannot receive communion but people like Caroline, Pelosi, Leahy & Biden who believe in any type of abortion can. How is that possible? I am really disgusted with Caroline.

  • “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I cannot impose my morality.”, the schism in the Catholic Church, invented and proposed by Robert Drinan, led the Kennedy family down the treacherous path they now follow, the imposition of immorality.

    Some people were looking for a way to compromise their morality with abortion. Drinan’s slippery slope has led the government to force citizens to fund and subsidize abortion, to which they are morally opposed, and now contraception, infanticide and euthanasia. To silence objectors, Catholics are being disenfranchised and defamed. Catholics are being betrayed by Caroline Kennedy.

    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.—-Thomas Jefferson

  • CAROLINE IS TYPICAL OF THE CAFETERIA CATHOLICS WHO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IN, SHAME ON CAROLINE

  • I’m not an American Catholic. I’m a Catholic and an American. And the fact that families like the Kennedy’s represent the face of our Church to this nation is very disturbing and shameful.

  • After reading all these comments I am glad I watched the tennis mathes instead of the convention. I do not like to watch a bunch of satanic people speaking against God and his plan for his children. The Kennedy’s have all given their hearts to Satan. Just look at all the tragedys in their families. May God have Mercy on them.

  • It is the TIME to storm heaven with prayers and fasting. For those of you who don’t pray the rosary, pick one up and learn how to do it. We are at a crossroads and the drought in this country and the storms are warnings to us to repent and return to God. Be in a state of grace, go to confession and be prepared.

  • So will her priest give her the Eucharist. Probably, because of whose daughter she is and the money behind that name. I am a Catholic convert, who is seriously considering Orthodoxy now (of the Eastern kind that is.) I cannot believe the spinelessness of the Catholic Bishops.

  • Many seem to be stunned that many of these ‘Catholics’ seem to have been improperly Catechised. You are correct in your observations. This unfortunately took place, by the failure of the shepherds to LEAD. Many became wolves and either DEVOURED or allowed the flock to be scattered. This destruction of souls was foretold repeatedly by warnings from heaven. LaSallete! Fatima! Faustina! Because these warnings fell on deaf ears, we will now live out the message of AKITA. Chastisement comes to the whole world. Scoffers, laugh now while you can, seekers of truth, stand and wait, as promised it comes. Pray for mitigation!

  • Can you imagine seeing these Cinos faces on judgement day… Sounds like heaven!!!

  • How can someone be pro-abortion and Catholic? The doctrine of the Catholic Church is “LIFE”. All religious leaders in every church in the USA, are “Obligated” to promote “Life” and tell their congregation,before the November election, to vote in accordance with “Life”, not DEATH>This election is an election which will segregate the goats from the sheep. Let’s vote in accordance with God and His Son and his sheep.

  • Your poor grandmother will roll over in her grave.

  • My, my, what an intelligent, you know, argument, you know, from a, you know, Catholic woman, you know. Jackie (an editor) must be flipping in her grave, you know. And at least we didn’t have to read and see all of this with Jack in office — although we’ve found out he was really just a hypocrite, you know.

  • The Kennedys do not get it. These dead branches are being cut off because they produce nothing but dead fruits. To whom much is given, much is expected.

  • The Pope has recently stated that if you can’t believe what is not debatable in the Catholic Church you should be intellectually honest and leave. This woman is a fraud the same as Biden, Pelosi, etc. It is time for the Bishops to get some backbone and refuse Communion to these people or excommunicate them.

    Silence on the issue generally in law means acquiescence. If they don’t say anything about this then they appear to be agreeing with the person making the statement. This is serous because these individuals get national attention.

    Some quotes from G.K. Chesterton and others:

    “There are an infinite number of ways to fall, but there is only one way to stand.”

    “Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

    “Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural”

    “When men cease to believe in God they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they believe in anything!”

    “Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine [Ephesians 4:14], seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s ego and desires.” — Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became pope)

    Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. (Matt 10:34-36)

    St. Athanasius is the first recognized Doctor of the Church and has the title “Father of Orthodoxy.” The following quote has been attributed to him “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.”

  • 2 + 2 = 4 NO MORE NEW MATH! Regardless of your feelings…the above equation is fact.

    Do not call yourself Catholic if you do not follow her teachings….especially The Most Important One of our time….abortion.

    This is it. You can not walk the fence. Your “grey areas” are over. Choose your camp, or be vomited out as Holy Scripture points out. By saying 2 + 3 = 4 doesn’t make it so because the culture says it does. If your Catholic than start acting like it, and go to confession and be free from the popular culture that chooses death over life.

  • When you continue this kind of socialistic logic to its conclusions it is not hard to figure what is in store for us just down liberal lane. In fact it is already here.
    Since college girls are assumed to be entitled to have all the sex they can cram into four years of study and the cost of personally choosing to prevent their bodies from functioning normally to this heightened involvement with the sheer pleasure associated with nature it is now considered to be the obligatory responsibility of taxpayers to pay for their choice of personal physical fantasy and casual sexual pleasure one way or another until they are out on their own looking for work in a jobless market, what is next?
    Well then some other liberal government run system of healthcare like Planned Parenthood can take over the job and gladly kill off any inadvertent normal consequences (Obama calls them punishments) that happen in the anti-natural process. Rest assured by the two fisted combination of government run media and liberal theocracy their choices will be protected from any religious or moral theology.
    After that the plan currently on the medical horizon now is that should they decide to attempt to retrain their bodies to function normally and hopefully produce offspring as their bodies were designed to do they will be allowed to review the net results (about to be defined as a Non-person by liberal lingo) and if they are not satisfied with the appearance, sex, or health of the IT they, with rights of ownership, can request that IT be disposed of BEFORE or (the latest argument) AFTER BIRTH should the owner not be satisfied with her product up to a year or so without penalty, would you believe?
    Socialism touts pleasure without pain or penalty, in practice it is convenience without conscience

  • She tries to exonerate herself and others like her…..she doesn’t have the authority to do so in the first place…..she can only use the laws of the Church thus she is not a Catholic but a “protestant”. By Church law she has personally excommunicated herself. She could be commiting a sin against the Holy Spirit in stating that the Church has no authority from God to tell her that she is in sin by influencing others to evil. Recently Pope Benedict has asked those who try to abuse the Church from within to get out.

  • The Kennedy’s as a whole have practiced the Catholic Faith their way. They would be better off as an Episcopalian rather than damage the Church by their actions. They are hypocritical when they hide behind the Catholic Faith and ignore the teachings of that religion. Personally, I think she and all so-called Catholics should be excommunicated formally.

  • My dear Caroline, how is possible for you to be so confused? It boggles my mind. It is so unbelievable to hear you call yourself a Catholic. Being a Catholic means also being a Christian, meanwhile it is ok for you to kill babies. Do you not know what it means to be a Catholic? Given your comments, sad to say, I believe you are neither a Catholic nor a Christian. May God have mercy on you and your family. Remember…your children and your children’s children will have to bear your sins.

  • Her first drastic error—–saying “as a Catholic woman…”. Roman Catholicism respects and values each and every life, from conception to natural death. Obviously, calling herself Catholic is the epitome of betrayal to the Catholic religion. Where is our church Heirarchy and why aren’t they addressing this type of scandalism, the Carolyn Kennedy’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, etc. ????
    Cardinal Dolan, the wonderful distinguished clergyman from my home state must have had nightmares as a result of being on the same stage after her. May our God bless and forgive her.

  •     This ( public pro abortion Catholics) is an entirely hierarchy matter on which the hierarchy for some reason chooses inaction largely… maybe because they feel acting will not stop one abortion but it will likely deliver dissenters into hell forever. Fraternal correction by laity requires that repentance as being very possible in the other person but it may differ for hierarchy.  Christ rebuked the stubborn while telling disciples not to cast their pearls before swine which He seemed to be doing.  It’s a complex area.
         Abortion is condemned infallibly not in the universal ordinary magisterium which is susceptible to debates but it is manifestly infallible in the extraordinary venue which is beyond debate ( canon 749-3(c)).  Therefore Bishops and the Pope can excommunicate such verbal offenders while only physical participants are excommunicated automatically under canon law.
         Here is the infallible declaration whereby John Paul II polled the world’s Bishops under him and got unanimity which is the alternative to ex cathedra in the extraordinary magisterium:

    Evangelium Vitae, section 62:

         “Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

          Catholic laity are frustrated with hierarchy seeming passive but maybe hierarchy see excommunications of pols as stopping virtually no abortions but surely delivering pols into damnation due to the improbability of their repentance.  They can be incorrect in such prudential judgements but they also could be correct.  Now the pols may be damned nonetheless but that might be a smaller number if some gradually change over their lifetime rather than digging in their heels after excommunication.
          One thing’s for sure.  We the laity don’t have as many souls to weigh as to damnation.

  • I just read her speech. There’s not much to say about her Catholicism that hasn’t been said already on this thread.

    The other thing that struck me was how badly the speech was aimed. She was talking to “the youth”, because, you know, she’s a kid, and she knows that kids have fond memories of the early 1960’s. She’s over 50, and she probably doesn’t have clear memories of the early 1960’s, but kids today apparently do. It just doesn’t make sense.

  • Dear Caroline,

    You are a HYPOCRITE and a SCHIZOPHRENIC!
    You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion.
    How ignorant can you be? Take a basic course in why Catholics believe what they do. Then go to confession and repent. Time is short.
    Your soul is in grave peril. May God have mercy on you.

    catholic carol in canton

  • I understand Niel Diamond song ” Sweet Caroline” was inspired by her. She should read Eleanor of Aquitain’s tomb stone. Like the corpse of Eleanor, Caroline does not smell so sweet. She and those like her are not Catholics. They just have a microphone and a stage And suffer vain egotism too think they represent us and the Catholic church. And who is at fault for that! the Bishops who’s job was to publicly excommunicate them long ago.

  • One thing that should be done for the sake of the immortal souls of such people like Ms Kennedy and the likes of Palosi, Kerry , Biden, etc, is that their bishops should have a conversation with them that by taking a public stand as they are ,they have excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. As their chief shepherds it is their obligation to warn them of their precarious spiritual situation. It not have to be done publically. Possibly some have done so and if so you are doing your obligation. To those bishops who are not may you find the grace of getting a backbone.

  • Most Catholic Politicians are a joke, will Paul Ryan follow in their footsteps? Shame on our Bishops for even considering voting for these people. This DNC Convention says it all as to how low they will go to keep in power. The abyss is ever widening for these people. Everytime they put “Catholic” in a sentence I feel ill. This truly is a schism being created by our government via the Catholic Church. God is mercy on all who fall for it.

  • There is no such thing as a proabort catholic! why are these peoples priests and bishops not callng them out on this. You cannot believe in abortion and be a true catholic!!!! these people are crazy! Everyone person who promotes, gives proabort speeches, agrees with this murdering of our own species is just as guilty, with blood on their hands, as the person who
    DOES the actual abortion! These people need to be TOLD that right to their face.Do they believe as they walk to receive communion that JESUS just pats them on their heads and says. “That is ok how you feel, you are still Worthy to receive me!!!!!! Murder is a mortal sin!! Espousing it IS a mortal sin! Teaching young people that abortion is ok ia a SIN! We are called to pray for these misfits , but I cannot respect ANYONE who really believes abortion is ok. I wil never vote for a prochoice politician. Does not anyone see that abortion is our Biggest societal failling!. Our country will Never be restored while half

    of the country is screaming for this so called RIGHT. We will continue to be slammed in all ways, Until we give up this sin!! God will NOT bless us anymore until we STOP!!!!

  • Please do not call her a Catholic: she isn’t, and God have mercy on her soul for the mortal sins she has accumulated in her lifetime as did most of the Kennedy clan: a sham representing catholic politicians…..yu know? (what was that all about?)

  • It is far too late in these social justice debates with outright disobedience and political correctness approaches to today’s perversions of human behavior and betrayal of biblical truth for our hierarchy to simply urge the Laity into action. Our actions are of little consequence within the media and for the most part futile if we do not have the weight of authoritative clerical discipline and/or pronouncements supporting our voices.
    Unless we witness prominent church officials and bishops condemning, defrocking and excommunicating these self styled ruling class individuals who present themselves as equally prominent laymen and/or politicians who openly challenge church law while imposing pain and suffering on the people with ill fated self endowed elitist rhetoric and socially lethal legislation the laity will continue to be recognized and labeled just as our president assumes us to be, uneducated uninformed homophobes clinging to our guns and Bibles.
    It is spiritually inhumane for hierarchy and church leadership to not display promptly and publicly their condemnation of obvious Evil policies and practices by groups and individuals calling them by name defining the consequence of their actions for the discernment of the faithful as we would expect from truly devout shepherds.

  • technically speaking, an excommunication does not have to be public. However; as these people are public people and there crimes against God and humanity are out in the open and
    manifest they cause grave scandal. More than Ms. Kennedy soul is at stake. For the sake of those who fall into hell because of their bad example justice demands that the church publicly excommunicate.
    The talk is private and results are not satisfactory, the rules of repentance demands a public recantation of errors. John the Baptist called Herod out publicly, the early church excommunicated publicly and the modern Church censors and excommunicate in its diocesan publicly. That is correct Bishop’s do publish actions against faithful in the church new papers and bulletins and release prohibitions to local national and international catholic publications.

  • “My people, you cannot fulfil your mission if you live the ways of the world. Those of you who choose to destroy marriages that are blessed by Me will be brought to your knees for any marriage that is destroyed by sin is destroying Me. Each time My chosen sons deny the true teaching of My Church and live their ways instead of Mine are destroying Me.

    “Each time a mother aborts her baby and chooses herself over her unborn child is destroying Me. My people, I suffered My scourging at the pillar, My persecution, and I stood and watched while others spoke false things of Me and yet I did this for you. My agony in the garden was a suffering of the sins that you now pierce Me with. I was sent by My Father to shine My light into a world that had been plagued with darkness and this darkness is soon to be cast into hell for all eternity. Just as I gave My angels in heaven the free will to choose My way or theirs, so you too are given the same opportunity, yet My angels were only given one chance, you are given a lifetime.

    “My people, those of you who choose to step ahead of Me will be sent to your eternal destination of eternal fire. My kingdom does not welcome sinful souls. My kingdom does not welcome the unrepentant sinner. Just as your hands work left to right so does My way or the world’s, there is no in-between. You cannot walk the middle line and claim you are My disciple.”
    Extracted from ‘Words From Jesus, As given to Jennifer by Jesus’, Message of 15th October 2004 8:00 PM

  • Caroline and others who are enmeshed in the culture of death, cannot and should not even hint that they are Catholic. They cannot and should say “. A Catholic is a follower of Jesus Christ, not Jesus Christ except for what I don’t agree with for myself. There is only one truth. The truth of Christ and the Word have not changed.

  • May the blood of Christ’s passion and the blood of all aborted babies stand between Barack Obama and his reelection. Amen.

  • The only ones they are fooling are themselves. There surely isn’t a person on earth who doesn’t know that murdering innocent babies in the womb is the gravest of sins! As the Blessed Mother has referred to abortion – the most egregious of sins – the one most offensive to God! How can anyone with a heart, a soul and a brain justify it? It is beyond arrogance. It is absolutely painful to hear these pro-abortion people describe themselves as Catholics. Please take the Pope’s advice and at least be honest with yourselves and move on.

  • The Kennedy’s were looked upon by other countries before John died to be a model catholic family. They have their own priest, they all go to church. The falling down for me started with few words from John as president when he said, I will never listen to the pope something to this effect. His fame, successes was short lived. He was only the president where the whole world cried and mourned when he died. The other falling away was the separation then Ted getting married while ex wife was still very alive. I am not sure if Chappaquiddick happens first. It seems as if they never got up and gather themselves to show once again that model catholic family I saw when I was 23.

  • She is “catholic” in her mind only, unless she is using the term as “universal” and not as in “Roman Catholic”. Canon Law is very clear…anyone who has, or helps, or encourages in anyway, another person to have an abortion is automatically excommunicated. No formal statement needed from any church authority.
    May God continue to have mercy on all our souls, and bring us all to have right judgment and true charity in our actions!
    PAX

  • Classic example of why it’s better to remain silent and be thought stupid than to speak and remove all doubt. You know?
    No, Caroline, we don’t know how you can be Catholic and a pro-abort Democrat. In fact, we have no idea. You know?

  • Mark,
    No. That’s the loophole in the automatic excommunication. It’s only for those very involved in a real life abortion. Go here:

    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

  • I pray for Caroline, that the Holy Spirit will touch and change her heart with regards TO the SANCTITY OF LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH as well as TO REALIZE THAT SHE CAN NOT CALL OR IDENTIFY HERSELF AS A CATHOLIC IF SHE IS SERVING THE PRINCE OF LIES, DECEIT AND DARKNESS- SATAN! As a FAITHFUL CATHOLIC deserving a place in Heaven at the end of her temporary earth journey, she MUST OBEY GOD’s WORDS:

    Matthew 6:24  
    No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

    Caroline, may God’s Mercy be upon your soul. Repent, convert your life back to the WAYS God wants us to live our lives, that is towards the LIGHT that will save your soul and experience eternal peace and happiness and not towards DARKNESS where you will experience eternal life of suffering and pain!

  • As i told my wife in 2008, we have passed over to the obama nation of desolation. Just as in ancient times they sacrifice the children and the politicians throw them loaves of bread to keep them content. The schools are terrible and the the people for the most part do not want to follow the Carpenters advice to “take up your cross and come follow me” And while on the subject why do we now worship some “holy” football players who earn millions for working on Sunday?

  • Kennedy is definitely a rabid pro-abort but she is no Catholic! The door of the Catholic Church swings both ways. Kennedy, and her ilk, value cheap liberal politics over the Catholic faith. Fine! Let her be an important Democrat voice but she is no Catholic voice. The Bishops need to make an example. Enforce Canon 915. It is getting late in America and the Democrat pro-aborts are using the Catholic Church to promote more innocent death.

  • I was flaborgasted when I heard the comments from Ms. Kennedy. I believe it will be God that will judge us, but at the same time I have difficulty not outrage from the Local Priests, Bishop, Cardinals and Pope. I understand that we have to be “forgiving and accepting” as Christians, but this goes against the doctrine of the church. If the Church does not actively and with purpose condemn this and stand up for “life” who will? I hope this is not done so we “don’t rock the boat” in our political correct world, or worse yet “loose money” from rejecting this pro-abortion stance from so-called “Catholics”!

  • Jack Kennedy was the first president that I was able to vote for. We were so excited to think of having a Catholic president in the White House, and we grieved at his passing. It was later that we learned of his constant womanizing, his relationship with Marilyn Monroe, his sneaking women into the White House for his pleasure. The bloom started to fade from the Kennedy clan. Teddy and his womanizing. Then their abortion position. Maria Shriver boasting that she was a cafeteria Catholic made me lament that any Kennedy claimed their Catholic roots and religion. Now, Caroline Kennedy continues to make us Catholics, perhaps particularly those of us old enough to have voted for her father and to remember her as a little girl when her father died, weep with shame. I want to tell them to leave the Catholic church and to choose a church more compatible with their thinking. I long to see some bishop with enough courage to denounce the behavior of this clan. No matter how scandalous the actions of some of these high profile Catholic, most of our shepherds don’t seem to be able to deny them the eucharist. There are some, however, who do stand up for the teachings of the church and we applaud them and bless them.

  • As Peter Kreeft has noted, “so many Kennedy Catholics, so few Catholic Kennedys”

  • Just as a slaver would not have identified himself as an abolitionist, so those who oppose the moral authority of the Pope and his bishops in supporting and defending the pro-death agenda (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, sterilization) need to stop calling themselves catholic and using the religion that most of us devout would give our lives to further their own agendas.

  • Maria,

    Not just that, JFK (gasp) cut taxes.

    Maybe some bishop, or all the bishops, will write a memo to the faithful to wit “You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion.”

    Never happen.

  • So many comments speak about “shame on Carolyn”. Though she is NOT blameless, this is truly the shame of the Bishops, the priests and pastors in the parishes, the vocations directors, the seminaries, the confessors, the contracepting RCIA instructors, the contracepting extraordinary ministers, the openly defiant religous (priests, pastors, deacons, bishops, sisters, and Catholic school teachers who are NOT Catholic – who aren’t even AWARE AND DO NOT AGREE with the accurate ABSOLUTE Magisterial teachings of the APPROVED authority of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s where the shame lies.
    SO many of our “pastors”, FATHERS! have neglected their children, have led them, LED THEM into the pit AND LEFT THEM THERE. Pray, Pray and fast that the biological solution occurs in every diocese. We have SOLID AUTHENTIC priests coming up through the ranks and in seminaries (particularly the religious orders; Norbertines, Fathers of Mercy, Franciscan-Renewal) who are still having to battle their bishops, pastors and the pseudo Catholic, defiant Catholic people in the pews. We all must encourage the solid priests, let them know that there is a MASSIVE ARMY OF FAITHFUL who are praying for them to be strong, be consistent AND LOOK SATAN IN THE EYE and openly, publicly EXPOSE HIM and his FATAL influence within the church. If this situation disturbs you, check out Truly Catholics (on facebook and by email TrulyCatholics@live.com) and we can provide you with methods and materials to combat the evil that currently exists WITHIN our church. JOIN US!

  • too much “you know”stuff coming out of her “you know” mouth. Is she excommunicated yet? What a poor soul.

  • I remember what Mother Theresa said: “The downfall of America will be abortion!!!”

  • Sorry, but a Catholic cannot be pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-murder, pro-stealing, pro-lying, etc. Do you know why to be pro-life is to be pro-choice? Because, when one chooses to give birth to a child a near infinite number of choices will be made relative to that child. Choices made by the child in his/her life. Choices made by others in relation to the child. To be pro-abortion is to be for one choice – Murder, and the death of all possible future choices.

  • It is an Honor to be a mother.

    Your Grandmother Rose was Catholic and loved her children. I could not see her participating in any of this.

    Caroline , you have been through way more than J Lo.

    Let’s honor our children and mother’s and give these women a chance to be mothers.

    Your uncle Ted needed a lot of prayers … let’s see some light shine, Caroline for Truth!

  • I can’t make out anything the ditz says but YA KNOW. What an embarrassment those Kennedys are.

  • Must have gotten her genes from Uncle Tedd. The Church should have taken these Kennedys to task a long time ago. The Bishop of Boston was a slacker. The Church has a duty to instruct their members. After all, they’re charged with the very serious job of looking after the souls of their flock. We need to pray for our priests…they are under severe attack by the Evil One in these last days. Our country is at a cross roads as never before in it’s history. Are we going to choose Our Lord, Who suffered and died for us? Or throw His gift back in His Face?

  • Prayer on the 20th of October.
    Please allow me to spread the Rosary campaign here. Last fall over 6,500 cities around the world focused their prayers for the conversion of our Nation. Please become a Rosary Capt. for this Fall.
    Our goal is to end the culture of death through the hands of our Lady. Americaneedsfatima/rosary.com
    Find your city for this years rally. If not listed become a capt.
    Blessings for this Country…not curses.

  • Another scum pond Kennedy. . . She is no Catholic.

  • Some thoughts regarding Caroline Kennedy: I thought, she’s a millionaire and she’s going to hell, and I’m just a regular person and I’m going to Heaven. Who’s the lucky one?

    I’m not trying to be mean but Caroline Kennedy couldn’t even pass a college Public Speaking Class 101. No college professor would pass her with 4 “you know”s in each sentence. I’m really surprised that Teddy (let’s not discuss him) would have corrected her on this.

    Unfortunately, she IS leading other morons like herself into hell. In fact, she’s leading a parade of people there.

    I was also DISGUSTED beyond words that Cardinal Dolan gave a closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention – with all of their satanic positions. I understand the bullcrap about given both parties “equal time”. The problem is that the mindless dopes who watch the Democratic National Convention (who, most likely, didn’t watch the Republican Convention) would think that Cardinal Dolan was putting his stamp of approval, his endorsement on the Democratic presidential ticket. How many votes will be given to Obama because of Cardinal Dolan’s appearance at the Democratic National Convention? The Republicans NEED EVERY SINGLE VOTE THEY CAN GET to get this wannabe Communist tyrant out of the White House. I have a great fear that Cardinal Dolan, this backslapping, gutless wonder will become Pope some day. It’s a real possibility. He’s political enough. Why doesn’t Cardinal Dolan say something to Caroline Kennedy. Where is John Joseph O’Connor when we NEED him!!!!! THERE was a real priest. THERE was a real MAN OF GOD.

    If Obama gets reelected, and he frames things so that the Catholic Church is “unpatriotic”, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could one day soon be arrested for entering a Catholic Church. THAT’S one of the main reasons we have to pray our brains out.

    Caroline Kennedy is absolutely pathetic. Sure, I feel TERRIBLE that her father was shot. Nobody should be shot. However, what’s truly pathetic is that she’s in her fifties and her “career” is still holding on to Daddy’s and Mommy coat tails. Has she done ANYTHING in her life? When the Kennedys were furious that Obama did not push for Caroline Kennedy to be made a Senator (it’s her RIGHT to be Senator, didn’t he know that?), they turned against him. My friend told me at the time that he had heard Caroline Kennedy speak and he said that she was obviously very damaged; he could tell by how she expressed herself. I THOUGHT he was exaggerating. But anyone who says “You know” 1300 times in an interview to the point where it’s PAINFUL to listen to the person – has NO business seeking – or thinking herself entitled – to any public position.

    Caroline Kennedy talks about “public service” and what an honor it is. With the Kennedy’s, it’s all about “self service” and gaining power. How STUPID does she and the rest of the Kennedy clan think we are?

    Lastly, when I heard that that pig, Teddy Kennedy, was dying of brain cancer, I said a Divine Mercy Chaplet for him (please don’t throw rocks at me.) I figured that anyone who had to face Almighty God with Teddy’s record would need all the help you could get. When I learned that he was conspiring with Russia against President Bush and behind President Bush’s back (his communication was found in the Kremlin), I was REALLY SORRY I had said the Divine Mercy Chaplet for him. Well, God will take everything into account – I hope.

    Well, that’s enough time “wasted” on the Kennedy trash on a Friday night.

  • umm no you are NOT, you aren’t a Catholic by ANY stretch of the imagination, other than your own. again WHERE is her bishop to denounce and repudiate! bishops BE MEN OF GOD and not democrapic operatives!

  • you know
    you know
    you know, i am not very intelligent

  • When I first commented on this I said “incoherent thinking” and “dopey” and I still think that. She is not evil, but I would not be surprised if dope doesn’t have something to do with the you knows. I think she is a lost child and I appreciate all the people who will pray for her and her family. Prayers and love are needed. Mercy. Conversion is needed.

  • Note to her bishop: If this is not a full blown scandal, what is? Whatever private discussions you have had with this lost soul has now no good and now this is a major embarrassment to the church. It is not my place to criticize a bishop so I will simply and humbly remind you that you, sir, are responsible to God for the inaction that caused this scandal. This woman should not be able to go on national TV and announce to the world that she, with such blatantly anti-Catholic views, is a Catholic.

  • Part of the confusion among people about the Catholic Church are the highly publicized nature of events in the Kennedy family since 1960 – many of which were set in Catholic churches. Religion was muted by glamor and drama lived vicariously by so many church-goers. The attitude of permissiveness took deeply into their hearts and minds as catechesis for right and wrong.

    So many (around here) still have the lying Republican, dyed in the wool rightness of caring Democrats in their attitude and way of life of permissiveness and nepotism.

    This problem in politics, government and religion, and for our devotion to our Creator, would be well served by statements by Church hierarchy plainly defining how excommunication is a choice of free will, and how and why. They don’t have to name names. Then, people will be able to think within a framework that helps them to discern what they see and hear. Sort of a make-up lesson for the ongoing lost opportunity in catechesis.

    Or, there will forever be those waiting for the shoe to drop from a bishop or priest while they just go along judging all quarters with misconception and foolishness. Like some who snap at me about Republicans, daily Mass, all good coming from and being about who you know not what you know, n’stuff, you know?

  • Obama already snubbed her, refused to meet with her when the obama’s were vacationing in her back yard, never helped her Senate run, all of which infuriated her. Yet she support him and the Democrats over her Church. Weak woman!
    AND WHERE ARE OUR BISHOPS…THE WATCHMEN. WEAK AND TIMID AND LOST. THEY WILL BE LIKE THE KING OF FRANCE. IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR THEM TO STAND UP AND LEAD!

  • Caroline Kennedy’s persistent public acts of defiance towards the Catholic Church especially with respect to the sanctity of life is a major scandal. What is even more scandalous is the fact that the Bishops (especially her Bishop) behave as if it is totally acceptable. Jesus said to Peter and his successors “feed My lamb…feed my sheep” – Our Bishops are derelict in their in their duty – by way of their silence they imply they do not take the sanctity of life very seriously and they (the Bishops) scandalize all Catholics. Caroline Kennedy is not the only one our Bishops give a pass in the area of Truth and Morality – there is Biden, Pelosi amog others. Yes, do pray for the Bishops as well.

  • Obviously her thinking is muddled and confused… the video clip of her interview without a teleprompter is evidence enough of that. And her contention that she is both Catholic and pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage is absurd since they are mutually exclusive… you can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion / pro-same-sex marriage. I still don’t get why so many people who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings WANT to identify themselves as Catholic.

  • Pingback: As a Catholic Pro-Abort Woman | Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana
  • Where is her Bishop and what does he have to say about this?

    A couple of quotes from G. K. Chesterton and others:

    “There are an infinite number of ways to fall, but there is only one way to stand.”

    “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

    “Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

    “Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural”

    “Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.”

    Mother Teresa – “America needs no words from me to see how your decision in “Roe vs Wade” have deformed a great nation.”

    Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. (Matt 10:34-36)

    Hillaire Belloc stated “It is a nice question whether ignorance or stupidity play the greater part in human affairs.”

    St. Athanasius is the first recognized Doctor of the Church and has the title “Father of Orthodoxy.” The following quote has been attributed to him “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.”

  • “Reproductive rights”, as Caroline Kennedy used this term in her address to the 2012 Democratic Party Convention, is both an incorrect and very deceptive term. The correct term, the term she should have used, is “Non-Reproductive Rights”. Women of child-bearing age who are sexually active routinely become pregnant at some point and have babies, that is they “reproduce”. This is both quite normal and quite natural. However the very purpose and goal of “reproductive rights”, so-called, is to ensure a woman of child-bearing age who is sexually active woman does not reproduce. This is accomplished by using birth control to avoid pregnancy and, if birth control fails, that is if a woman become pregnant, to abort the unwanted unborn child by taking drugs called abortifacients or by a procedure called an abortion. Aborting the unborn by either means is simply considered a back up form of birth control. To a “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocate the hallmark of a free society is a society that affords “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” to all women, especially the right to abortion. So they want the federal government to require all health insurance to cover the costs of women’s “Non-Reproductive Rights” or, if women have no insurance coverage, to pay for these costs.

    Abortion is legally protected in the United States, though it is never protected enough for “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. For one thing, they are strongly in favor making late-term abortions legal. A late-term abortion is an abortion later in the pregnancy when the baby is more developed. “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates support late-term abortions even if the “fetus” may be “viable”, that is capable of living on outside the womb of the mother. We should all be aware that an overriding principle that “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates strongly hold and espouse is that no right and no value is greater or more important than a “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”, in other words “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” trump all other rights and all other values. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” trump rights of parents to prevent their underage daughters firn having access to birth control and to an abortion. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates are against any granting unborn children any rights whatsoever, and, if an aborted child miraculously survives an abortion, they strongly support laws giving the attending physician the legal right to put the pesky but unfortunate survivor out of its misery.

    As with the irony that “reproductive rights”, so-called, really means and accurately describes “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”, the irony that half of aborted babies are female and in “gender selective” abortions, well over half of aborted babies are female is totally lost on “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. Yet they routinely impugn the motives of those who oppose them frequently accusing their opponents of being anti-women.

  • Michael I would like to see your letter printed in a couple of area papers!~

  • Please feel free to do so. I have reworded it a bit to read as follows:

    “Reproductive rights”, as Caroline Kennedy used this term in her address to the 2012 Democratic Party Convention, is both an incorrect and very deceptive term. The correct term, the term she should have used, is “Non-Reproductive Rights”. Women of child-bearing age who are sexually active routinely become pregnant at some point and have babies, that is they “reproduce”. This is both quite normal and quite natural. However the very purpose and goal of “reproductive rights”, so-called, is to ensure a woman of child-bearing age who is sexually active woman does not reproduce. This is accomplished by using birth control to avoid pregnancy and, if birth control fails, that is if a woman become pregnant, to abort the unwanted unborn child by taking drugs called abortifacients or by a procedure called an abortion. Aborting the unborn by either means is simply considered a back up form of birth control. To a “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocate the hallmark of a free society is a society that affords “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” to all women, especially the right to abortion. So they want the federal government to require all health insurance to cover the costs of women’s “Non-Reproductive Rights” or, if women have no insurance coverage, to pay for these costs.

    Abortion is legally protected in the United States, though it is never protected enough for “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. For one thing, they are strongly in favor making late-term abortions legal. A late-term abortion is an abortion later in the pregnancy when the baby is more developed. “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates support late-term abortions even if the “fetus” may be “viable”, that is capable of living outside the womb of the mother. We should all be aware that an overriding principle that “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates strongly hold and espouse is that no right and no value is greater or more important than a “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”, in other words “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” trump all other rights and all other values. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” trump rights of parents to prevent their underage daughters from having access to birth control and to an abortion. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” also trump religious rights. Under Obamacare the health insurance that religious employers, such as the Catholic Church, and employers opposed to abortion due to their religious beliefs offer their employees must fund the costs of “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”. And not to be overlooked, because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates are against any granting unborn children any rights whatsoever, and, if an aborted child miraculously survives an abortion, they strongly support laws giving the attending physician the legal right to put the pesky but unfortunate survivor out of its misery.

    As with the irony that “reproductive rights”, so-called, really means and accurately describes “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”, the irony that half of the estimated 1,500,000 babies aborted in the United States annually are female is totally lost on “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. Yet though they are at least partially responsible for the destruction of 750,000 unborn females each year, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates not only routinely impugn the motives of those who oppose them frequently accusing their opponents of being anti-woman.

  • Michael NH Lawyer and Anzlyne:

    Every letter or phone call or e-mail is counted as 86 votes by those who are counting.The letter is actually long enough to be a column or an article in the newspaper. Letters are held to about 200 words. If the letter is really good, the editor will contact you and ask you to edit it, but usually, the paper will edit it themselves.

    Nonetheless, the secular editors are a captive audience. Get one editor thinking and his whole readership will learn something he knows.

    I, too, want to write using this comment.
    Thank you both. Michael for the column and Anzlyne for the idea.

    As a lawyer, you Michael, probably have the most chance to be published. It is the way the world works.

  • People should boycott buying that junk jewelry from qvc that is supposed to be reproductions of her mothers jewelry. This woman has made a lucrative career living off her dead parents! Most of these kennedys are trash, case in point that doglas kennedy kicking the nurse while attempting to take his newborn son out for a walk outside the hospital!! who would even think of this! Most of them cannot seem to integrate into society at any meaningful level, one wonders how they were raised.

  • Michael, please send your write up to the Wall Street Journal Editotrial:
    You may e-mailed to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com or addressed to:
    The Editor
    The Wall Street Journal
    1211 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, NY, 10036
    Be sure to include your city and state.
    The only change is the word “pesky” – change to “inconvenient”

Democrat Party Chairman for Palm Beach Hates Christians.

Thursday, September 6, AD 2012

 

Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County Party Chairman for the Democrat Party, forgets one of the fundamental rules of life:  If you are going to say something stupid and bigoted make sure you are not on video!

Here is his apology after he realized his words were going viral on the net:

“I apologize to all Democrats and Floridians for my ill chosen words last night.  After watching the interview I realize that what I said did not accurately make  the point I was trying to establish. More importantly I apologize to all  Christians, Jews and other people of faith for any embarrassment or anger my  remarks may have caused. Throughout my life I have practiced religious tolerance  among all people of faith. I am sincerely sorry for any remarks I made that may  have diminished that record. I alone am responsible for my remarks and I pray  that they are not taken as the position of the Palm Beach County Democratic  Party.”
Here is the statement of Yael Hershfield, interim director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Florida:

“The Anti-Defamation League is glad to see that  Mr. Siegel has issued a  sincere apology for his offensive  comments about Christians, and that he  made it clear he was solely responsible for them.  Religious bigotry has no  place in politics and civil society.”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Democrat Party Chairman for Palm Beach Hates Christians.

  • Isn’t snatching defeat from the jaws of victory the GOP’s patented m.o.?!?

  • i’m not entirely sure but that this guy (who obviously believes what he said if you read it,) in tune with the “why are Jews liberals?” stuff i’ve read about, sort of typifies it: they think the GOP, being the designated White Anglo-Saxon Christian Male party demographically, has this covert anti-Semitism that’s just waiting to be unleashed. even their pro-Israeli stance is secretly anti-Semitic (really…does anyone think that Romney says the things he does about Israel cuz he wants to hasten the end times)

    ‘course i don’t wanna stereotype all Jews, but that seems to be part of it.

  • wouldn’t it be great to hear Netanyahu’s response to what Siegal said!

  • I suspect it would involve the term meshugana! He understands that Christian evangelicals are the most pro-Israel section of the US population outside of most Orthodox Jews.

    http://forward.com/articles/110573/at-conference-evangelicals-take-on-netanyahus-figh/

  • Imagine the hue and cry; the demands for high level resignations; the cries for the Presidential candidate to repudiate his positions; the pitchforks, tar and feathers . . . if a GOP volunteer handing out leaflets in a Boise parking lot had said such a thing about abortionsists.

  • WOW, I can’t believe he said that on camera….

  • He said they want ‘us’ to die and convert. Just drastic shock value to claw the listener’s heart. Can’t convert after death; as far as I understand it, one converts to live. And live on the base of Mosaic law to boot.

    Some of these drastic statements (bigotry, extreme hate speech, and racism accusations) are from the school of “It takes one to know one.” These cause severe injury to souls as would a vulture’s beak or talon to prey. So irresponsible, cruel, and vicious. The reponse of the first lady to the religion off then on is an example. ‘Oh – it’s a non-issue.’ Almost a year after she was recorded at 9/11 10th memorial saying ‘all this for a damn flag’.

    DNC speeches are no fun. We’re right (yay), they’re wrong (yay) every other sentence.
    Reality (huh?), buzzwords (forward). Was there anyone well-balanced? I have no appetite for popcorn. I need bandaids and an old movie.

  • Sure he’s Jewish,
    Sounds more like a muslim, 😉

  • Wait. I thought fundamentalists supported Israel wholeheartedly because Our Lord will not return until the Temple is rebuilt. Oi vey I can’t keep up.

  • This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.

  • Exposition, please, Dr. Elton.

  • This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.

    It is–at best–a broadbrush, more like laying it on with a trowel.

    Christian fundamentalism isn’t some undifferentiated Borg phenomenon, after all. John Hagee certainly doesn’t fit your stereotype.

    Frankly, you really need to define your terms. I have heard the “fundamentalist!” scare term brandished against Catholics, after all.

  • “This guy actually told the truth about Christian Fundamentalists and their relationship to Jews. Fundamentalists don’t like Jews. They like their own phony eschatologies.”

    Let’s see. Christians who vigorously support the first Jewish state in 2000 years battling against those who wish to see every Jew in Israel dead or in exile. If this is called “not liking”, may we Catholics have such “not liking” in our hour of peril.

  • I think he said what he did because a number of fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that when the Jews are gathered from the nations to Israel they will in a sense be “ripe for the slaughter” and many will be slaughtered because of the Battle of Armageddon. So while a number of fundamentalists and evangelicals do support the state of Israel and the gathering in of Jews to Israel, their eschatology includes a mass slaughter of Jews at the battle of Armageddon.

  • If he believes that Brennan than he is truly an idiot, but I suspect that fundamental misunderstanding of almost all Christian support for Israel is merely an excuse for him to spew fairly standard leftist hatred of Christians. I see that after initially resisting calls for his resignation as head of the Democrat Party in Palm Beach he has now resigned:

    http://www.wpbf.com/news/politics/Palm-Beach-Democratic-Party-Chair-resigns-amid-controvery/-/8788770/16526908/-/ebkhqaz/-/index.html

    More’s the pity. I think he is a perfect symbol of what the modern Democrat party has become.

  • Brennan and Elton:

    This man is like a number of liberals: “dotty totalitarians”, “anti-Christian” bigots. I have discussed their views with a number of liberals. A number of these progressive savants believe that the 65 million Chairman Mao murdered (in the “cultural revolution”) was “okay.” It was only a percent or two more than would have starved to death, anyhow. And, the two million Cambodians Pol Pot murdered: they were capitalist exploiters. And, . . .

    That’s what they believe. You think you are right to damn a whole class of people: Christians. Seems you are consistent with most liberals.

  • [Speaking of “phony eschatologies,” here’s what I discovered on the net.]

    Christians Don’t Want Jewish Death

    Democrat leader Mark Siegel stated at the DNC that “fundamentalist Christians…want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord.”
    It wasn’t Glenn Beck, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey or any other Christian who first talked about the predicted massive slaughter of Jews during what Christians call the “end times.”
    It was the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who as long ago as 487 B.C. predicted that two-thirds of Jewry in the “last days” will be killed (Zech. 13:8).
    All true Christian leaders view this scripture with horror and sympathy and NOT with glee!
    Fundamentalist Christians are actually waiting for an “any-moment rapture” to Heaven (several years before the second coming) and do not believe that any event, including this final Jewish holocaust, has to happen before their escapist rapture happens.
    More shocks. Fundamentalists have recently been learning that their rapture belief was first taught in Britain in 1830 and that it wasn’t widely adopted by Americans until the early 1900s. The documentation on all this is in “The Rapture Plot” (carried by online bookstores) which also reveals for the first time that, amazingly enough, this British theory has an anti-Jewish foundation! (For more info Google “Pretrib Rapture Politics.”)
    Although no one is perfect, evangelical Christians (including fundamentalists) are still the best friends of Jewish persons and Israel.