Monthly Archives: October 2012
Tactical nuclear language and intelligence advisory to the above video from Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org. Are these people trying to sabotage Obama? Yeah, the country is going to be swayed by foul mouthed geezers threatening violence in the event of a Romney win. The video is an excellent demonstration of how exhausted humor on the Left in this country has become. Michael Moore: I’ve got a great idea! We’ll have a group of sweet oldsters who are supporting Obama and then we’ll have them use the F-Bomb and threaten mayhem against Romney. Brilliant! If I wasn’t shaped like Jabba the Pizza Hut, I’d break my arm slapping my back! With friends like Moore, Obama really does not need enemies like me.
In this election cycle, much has been made about the importance of establishing a “firewall” in certain states so that a candidate’s electoral college numbers don’t collapse.
When it comes to defending the faith against insurgents, one might hope the nation’s Catholic universities and colleges would provide the Church a “firewall of firewalls.” After all, haven’t they proclaimed themselves to be the places “where the Church does its thinking”? Where better to turn for a reasoned defense of the Church and its teaching than through its institutions of higher education?
Of course, as the pundits have been opining, it takes only one breach of the firewall to accelerate the process of potentially losing that firewall and, hence, increasing the probability of losing the election…or, in this instance, weakening one institution’s Catholic identity and providing “cover” for others to do the same.
Has that firewall wall been breached?
According to Inside Higher Education, the President of Xavier University in Cincinnati, the Reverend Michael J. Graham, SJ, has reversed himself. This “Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition” will now continue to provide employees artificial contraception coverage as part of the institution’s healthcare coverage.
Last April, Fr. Graham announced that Xavier had been covering contraception but no longer would, effective July 1, 2012. In a letter to employees, Graham wrote that offering such coverage was “inconsistent” for a Roman Catholic institution.
Correct! That’s defending the firewall.
However, that was then and this is now.
Between then and now, Fr. Graham’s decision and letter provoked an outcry. A number of Xavier University faculty and staff wanted to know who Fr. Graham or the institution were to dictate so-called “healthcare options” to married couples, to non-Catholics, and to those who don’t agree with Church teaching concerning artificial means of birth control. After all, that’s not being inclusive, is it? Then, too, they wanted Fr. Graham to explain why he made the decision and issued his letter without consulting Xavier employees first. That’s not very collegial, is it?
In the face of this tide of opposition, Fr. Graham agreed to postpone implementing the change until December. Perhaps Fr. Graham was biding his time while waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule.
But, once again, that was then and this is now.
Between then and now, the Supreme Court ruled in June, upholding Obamacare. The opinion was written by the Chief Justice, himself a Catholic. Talk about being provided intellectual and legal cover to allow the firewall to be breached!
Fr. Graham subsequently decided that since Xavier University would be required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of the institution’s healthcare coverage beginning August 1, 2013 anyway, the University would continue providing it to employees.
No doubt about it. The firewall has been breached!
In an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Fr. Graham blamed himself for how he handled this issue. But, he went even further. While strongly disagreeing with the Obamacare mandate, Fr. Graham said he “believes universities should set a moderate example for the nation.”
The president of one of those institutions where the Church is supposed to do her thinking has decided his institution should “set a moderate example for the nation”?
Could the rationale be that Church teaching tramples upon the religious freedom of those who freely choose to work at Catholic institutions, like Xavier University, yet don’t believe what those institutions represent? Then, too, borrowing from the example of St. Isaac Jogues, SJ, and his companions, why alienate all of those people when, simply by leaving the door open to them, they can be evangelized? And what will it matter anyway? After all, providing artificial means of contraception as part of nationalized healthcare coverage is going to be required of those institutions come August 1, 2013.
The rationale is problematic and the firewall has been breached. How long will it be before presidents of the other U.S. Catholic universities and colleges seize upon Fr. Graham’s reasoning and follow Xavier University’s lead?
This battle is not about “healthcare options.” It’s all about the much larger war to delegitimize Church teaching.
Where’s the reasoned defense to come from, now that this firewall has been breached?
To read the Inside Higher Education article, click on the following link: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/29/catholic-college-reverses-course-covering-contraception#ixzz2AhJ4Ca00
Barring a disputed count in a decisive state, by this time next week we will know who is going to be President of these United States for the next four years. I believe Romney is ahead, probably between 3-5 points, with Republican enthusiasm greater than Democrat enthusiasm giving him an additional edge. In this post we will look at the several paths to victory for Romney.
I take it as a given that Romney starts with a base of 257 electoral votes. This includes Colorado where the Republicans have the advantage in early voting, and in party affiliation. The other states are all of the West except Nevada and New Mexico, all of the Great Plains states, all of the Old Confederacy, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana and Alaska. Romney is only 13 electoral votes shy from a 270 majority, or 12 votes shy of an electoral vote tie, which would have him almost certainly voted in by the new House, with control of the Senate determining who the Senate would choose as Veep.
Here are the potential paths to victory for Romney which I see:
1. Ohio-18 electoral votes.
2. Pennsylvania-20 electoral votes.
3. Michigan -16 electoral votes
4. Wisconsin-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire -4 electoral votes
5. Minnesota-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire-4 electoral votes
6. Iowa-6 electoral votes-New Hampshire-4 electoral votes-Nevada-6 electoral votes
7. Iowa-6 electoral votes-Nevada-6 electoral votes-Maine Second Congressional District-1 electoral vote
8. Oregon-7 electoral votes-New Hampshire 4 electoral votes
9. Oregon-7 electoral votes-Iowa 6 electoral votes
10. Oregon-7 electoral votes-Nevada 6 electoral votes
New Hampshire I think is close to being a given for Romney. If Romney wins Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan he wins with no further states needed. With New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Minnesota can be Kingmaker states. If Romney loses all of the above states except New Hampshire, he still has a path to victory with Iowa and Nevada or Oregon.
A look at the individual states: Continue reading
According to Ward Lamon, Marshal of Washington and a former law partner of Abraham Lincoln, three days before his assassination, Lincoln spoke about a strange dream that he had:
*** Do you really need a content warning for this? It starts off with walking vaginas. In case that’s not obvious enough for you……Content Warning!!!***
|Who makes these things?|
Demands for free contraception
|Will spend tens of thousands of dollars on a law degree. Won’t spend $10 for her own pills.|
Acting like a slut is a fine thing to be
|Yes…we know you say yes…believe it or not, that’s what makes you a slut.|
Turning voting into a sexual experience
Telling me to “Vote with my Lady Parts”
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was all a little bit misogynistic, but I do know better. I learned it from the feminists I met in college. They taught me that as long as a man was in favor of abortion he could say anything he wanted about women and he was okay. That’s how I knew that the art professor who said that the perfect woman only needed “two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat” was funny. (He wore a Vote for Clinton t-shirt — so he was pro-woman just funny.) It’s how I knew that the polite guy in history class, who always held the door open for me because my hands were usually full of books, hated women. He voted for Bush. (The first one. It was 1992.)
When I was young and unmarried, the creepy guys were the ones who talked about nothing but sex while, usually, staring at your boobs. Things seem to have changed since the “dark ages” of the early ’90s. Now the guys who talk about sex non-stop and can’t get their minds away from our “lady parts” are hailed as the champions of womyn-kind!
|I’m sure that he has nothing but respect for the woman he’s treating like a piece of meat.|
Well, I have a message for these “Champions of Womyn!”
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the women in this country are nothing more than a bunch of vaginas walking around looking for a “good time” to happen. You have reduced us to nothing more than the sum total of the “lady parts” we’re sitting on.
You tell us “Free pills for everyone and religious liberty be damned!” and expect us to break into cheers.
We ask about the economy and you reply “Those abortions will be much more affordable now.”
You talk about equality for women, and that sounds like a wonderful thing! Then the President pays his own female staff $9,000 per year less than their male counterparts.
Top it all off with a creepy campaign ad comparing voting for your candidate with losing my virginity to “a great guy”, and all I can say to you people is:
Ick! When did you become so gross?
I keep hoping to see some representative of your campaign or administration come out and apologize for treating women as if we’re nothing more than “two tits, a hole, a heartbeat… and a voting hand.”
But you never do.
By portraying women as slutty snatches looking only to get laid, this campaign and administration have set women back decades in our quest for respect and equal anything. Thanks for that.
Can you do me a favor? Can you stop?
There’s a week left to go until the election, and I’m hoping that for the rest of that time you can get your minds outta my pants and talk about the things that really matter to the women of America. We want to hear about the economy, taxes, that out of control deficit (seriously, you think birth control pills are more important to me than the deficit?), or what the hell actually happened in Benghazi?
So stop treating us like vaginas which happen to be attached to bodies, and speak to the part of us that really matters — our brains. Quit thinking only of my girly bits (your fixation is a bit disturbing) and start talking to me as a voter.
Some six years ago my first book; The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism came out, which detailed the Good news happening in the Catholic Church. Since then and especially this year, I am often asked is the tide still turning? Rest assured I am not looking at the world and the Catholic Church through rose colored glasses, the book not only gives positive spin on what is going on through stories and anecdotal evidence, but I outline a lot of statistical and demographic data to prove my point.
Honestly writing a book requires a great deal of time and patience, and though I had enough material for about half a book, I was waiting for the right time to finish it. However last summer, I felt God really pushing me to get this out. Providentially many events within the Church and the political realm helped to convince me that now was the time. I am glad I listened and finished the book this spring because recently my wife and I welcomed another baby into our home, and with two small children, writing a book would have been very difficult.
The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn (Aquinas and More publishing) picks up where my previous book left off detailing the Good News occurring in the Church, but also, and this is very important, I address why the Catholic Church and religion in general is coming under attack in our modern world. Readers of my articles and first book continually asked my why we are facing these attacks? This is nothing new. Ever since the French Revolution in 1793 the Catholic Church and religion in general in the Western world has come under attack from powerful forces that for some demented reason have a problem with God.
In the book, I take a look at timelines in World History and examine revolutions like the American Revolution where religion was embraced compared to those like the French Revolution where it was attacked. This helps us in 2012 figure out why some in government and academia don’t like the Catholic Church and for that matter most religious institutions. The book also looks at the HHS Mandate and the political upheaval that unjust mandate has brought. Continue reading
Superstorm Sandy has largely passed my area by, and Pepco has been spared another round of calamitous outages. Luckily for you that means I get to write a post digging deep into presidential election statistics.
Though the election polls have produced differing results, a general consensus has seemingly emerged. Mitt Romney is, at worst, tied with President Obama, and has upwards of a five-point lead. The Real Clear average of polls puts Romney up by less than a point. On the other hand, RCP has Obama up 201-191 in the electoral college, with a 290-248 edge in the “no toss-up” scenario. Obama has held a consistent edge in the battleground state of Ohio, though Rasmussen’s most recent poll now has Romney up by two.
In general, I agree with Jim Geraghty that it appears almost certain that Mitt Romney will win the popular vote. It takes polls with rather generous Democrat advantages (in the range of D+7 and up) to even get Obama tied. I trust Gallup’s likely voter screen more than other polls, and Gallup has had Romney with a steady advantage of three-to-five points.
It’s certainly possible that Mitt Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. It has happened to several presidential candidates in our history, and we are all familiar with what took place in 2000. What is fairly unlikely, however, is for Mitt Romney to win the popular vote by a substantial margin and still lose the electoral college. If Mitt Romney wins the popular vote by more than even just a percentage point, than he will be the next President of the United States. Of course we can never be certain in politics, but it seems like a safe bet that the electoral and popular vote winner will the the same person.
One of the reasons that an Obama electoral college victory in the face of a popular vote defeat is unlikely is that massive swings in national vote totals are reflected in all states. President Obama won the popular vote by seven percent over John McCain in 2008. Assume for the moment that Mitt Romney wins by just one percent – that would signify an eight point swing in favor of the Republicans. Such a huge shift in the electorate is not going to be limited to a small number of states. And as history has shown, when the incumbent party loses support, it loses support everywhere.
I have taken a look at each presidential election since 1976. Since that election, the incumbent has lost twice, the incumbent party has lost two additional times, the incumbent has won three times, and one time the incumbent party has won once. In all but two of the elections since 1980 there has been a net shift of at least eight percent. Let’s take a closer look: Continue reading
No national polls today because of the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see any more until last-minute weekend ones. To tide over political junkies, there is a fun story in SFGate about California liberals petrified over the prospect that the Southside Messiah may not be reelected:
Edelman hosted a bunch of friends to watch the debate over dinner. But after the first five minutes unfolded, nobody ate. Few spoke. “And right after it ended, everybody just got up and left,” she said.
Alas, Obama didn’t respond to Blume’s pleas. And for the next two nights, Blume didn’t sleep. A man who has voted for only one Republican in his life - when the Beatles were touring – found himself questioning Obama and the state of the campaign.
You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
I have always enjoyed the speech of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men because it contains quite a bit of truth in it, and I have regretted that the words are placed in the mouth of the villainous Colonel Jessup. In regard to fallen American heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty it is completely, and righteously, applicable.
The higher-ups in the Obama administration who turned their backs on Woods and Doherty could never understand such men. It was no part of their mission to supply embassy security. Instead, after the Benghazi attack began, Tyrone Woods asked for permission to go and risk his life to rescue the embassy personnel. He was denied permission two times, and he went anyway. He was unarmed initially, picking up his weapons from what he found on the ground, the cast away arms of the Libyan mercenaries who were supposed to provide security at the consulate and who ran when the attack began. He rescued 20 embassy personnel and got them to the CIA annex, where they were evacuated while Woods, joined by Doherty who arrived in Benghazi after the attack began, engaged in a lop sided fight against some 150 to 200 attackers. During this time they gave live intelligence to their CIA higher-ups and requested military aid. The CIA has denied that it was anyone from the CIA who vetoed the aid. So, Doherty and Woods fought their own personal Alamo alone, slaying some 60 of their foes, until they were killed at their machine gun by a mortar round some six hours and twenty minutes from the time the attack began.
Doherty and Woods had their lives taken from them, fighting for their country and to save others. They epitomize what the term honor means. To the White House higher-ups who denied them aid, perhaps Doherty and Woods seemed to be fools: “Didn’t they realize that personal survival is the be all and end all? They were idiots for sticking their necks out! Now we have this political mess to clean up!” Yeah, it is easy to visualize both curses and laughter being aimed at the spirits of these men. The Seal Code these men lived and died by would be literally incomprehensible to the people who made the decision not to send them aid: 1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate, 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield, 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit, 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates, 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation, 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies, and 7) Earn your Trident every day. Continue reading
Jesus Christ a King of Glory has come in Peace. † God became man, † and the Word was made flesh. † Christ was born of a Virgin. † Christ suffered. † Christ was crucified. † Christ died. † Christ rose from the dead. † Christ ascended into Heaven. † Christ conquers. † Christ reigns. † Christ orders. † May Christ protect us from all storms and lightning † Christ went through their midst in Peace, † and the word was made flesh. † Christ is with us with Mary. † Flee you enemy spirits because the Lion of the Generation of Judah, the Root David, has won. † Holy God! † Holy Powerful God! † Holy Immortal God! † Have mercy on us. Amen!
Stay safe all our contributors, commenters and readers who are in the path of Hurricane Sandy. God guard you and keep you!
I have long praised our Veep, and Beloved National Clown, for his efforts to keep up our national morale during these dismal economic times by endless gaffes and verbal pratfalls. Now he has outdone himself!
In the above video the completely pro-abort Biden tries to portray himself, get this, as a faithful Catholic! Howlingly funny. I am sure Joe of course understands full well that a man with his voting record is as far from a faithful Catholic as it is possible for a politician to be. I am certain he is aware of this section of a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger:
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” , nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. Continue reading
Andrew Sullivan, the renowned gynecologist who spends most of his time attempting to prove that Sarah Palin could not be the mother of her son Trig, on ABC This Week yesterday began the work of establishing that Obama is going down to defeat because of racism.
This is a column he wrote after the video above:
I think America is currently in a Cold Civil War. The parties, of course, have switched sides since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party of the Union and Lincoln is now the Democratic party. The party of the Confederacy is now the GOP. And racial polarization is at record levels, with whites entirely responsible for reversing Obama’s 2008 inroads into the old Confederacy in three Southern states. You only have to look at the electoral map in 1992 and 1996, when Clinton won, to see how the consolidation of a Confederacy-based GOP and a Union-based Democratic party has intensified – and now even more under a black president from, ahem, Illinois
I will leave to others a determination as to the skill of Sullivan as a gynecologist, but in constructing historical parallels he reeks. A few thoughts:
1. Race and Obama-Obama is likely to end up with some 38% of the white vote and 95% of the black vote. I don’t construe anything from this, but if race were regarded as a factor in voting, it would seem that Obama’s overwhelming support among blacks might be considered to have a racial factor behind it, if it is assumed, as Sullivan does, that whites voting against Obama are motivated by race.
2. What a large Confederacy- I did not know that the Confederacy included such states as Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alaska, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and, probably, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and, perhaps, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and, in that northern bastion of Dixie, a congressional district in Maine. Continue reading
Bishop David Ricken of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin released a letter to his diocese on October 24 outlining considerations that should be taken into account by Catholics when voting:
I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person. They are:
3. embryonic stem cell research
4. human cloning
5. homosexual “marriage”
… Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy. The other position to keep in mind is the protection of religious liberty. The recent aggressive moves by the government to impose the HHS mandate, especially the move to redefine religion so that religion is confined more and more to the four walls of the Church, is a dangerous precedent. This will certainly hurt the many health care services to the poor given by our Catholic hospitals. Our Catholic hospitals in the Diocese give millions of dollars per year in donated services to the poor. In the new plan, only Catholic people can be treated by Catholic institutions. Continue reading