Benghazi: The Truth Finally Begins to Come Out

Friday, November 16, AD 2012

35 Responses to Benghazi: The Truth Finally Begins to Come Out

  • I hope and pray that this whole mess comes crashing down around Obama’s head.

  • I hope you are right, Don, that the truth will come out and that the response to it will be appropriate; but if the truth is truly embarrassing for the Administration, I’m afraid the MSM will greet it with a giant shoulder shrug. Most Americans are not that caught up in “current events,” and without relentless news coverage (see Watergate), the matter will prove to be of little moment except for those who died. I hope I’m wrong and comforted by the knowledge that I often am.

    I still don’t have any reasonable understanding of why exactly we did not support our fellow Americans when they were begging for support.

  • I did a little reading. The following article states:

    “‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’ said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. ‘He completely debunked that idea.'”–politics.html

  • “I still don’t have any reasonable understanding of why exactly we did not support our fellow Americans when they were begging for support.”

    The key question Mike.

  • In the short term, I don’t think it will matter much in terms of hurting Obama. At this point nothing short of impeachment and removal from office will derail Obama’s agenda.

  • The title of the post should have been, Petraeus starts to admit what everybody already knew. The truth has been from the beginning despite administration and media efforts to suppress it.

  • 1. Paul, it is being filtered through Adam Schiff.

    2. “No politicization” could mean that the White House did not lean on the CIA to alter their assessments. Rather, they were taken and then altered by parties elsewhere. Evidently Petraeus admits he does not know the identity of the agency which removed the line.

    3. What could the justification for removing that line be? That it conflicts with the assessments of other intelligence agencies? Which agencies?

  • Yes, Art D., You are correct: Schiff being a Democrat would slant statements to be favorable to the Administration. It would be nice to know exactly what was said at testimony.

  • From Petraeus’ testimony, we now know that the CIA told the WH that al Qaeda terrorists staged an organized, well planned attack on the Benghazi consulate long before Rice did her song and dance on five, count ’em 5, Sunday news shows.

    The WH, to sustain the, “we have al Qaeda on the run” myth until the election was over, told Rice the official lie. Oops, Freudian slip, I meant “line”. The WH told Rice exactly what to say, and she went on five (5) Sunday news shows and told the same bold-faced lie each time. That’s a woman with balls.

    But the real reason for the cover-up was not to perpetuate Obama’s, (I’m great at foreign policy” whopper, it was much deeper.

    You see, Amb Stevens was supplying weapons to al Qaeda, (arm of Muslim Brotherhood) that’re fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad, so the MB can takeover the govt just like they have in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya.

    Obama has been using U.S. resources, influence, money, and in some cases, our military to support the MB’s goal of seizing control of the Middle East and implementing Sharia law.

    You know how Obama and the media was touting the Arab Spring as a spirited revolt of people wanting freedom and democracy? Well, that was a big fat lie.

    The Arab Spring, which is still going on by the way, is actually a plan cooked up between the MB and Obama to 1) destabilize the govts of ME countries, 2) topple the leaders of their govts, and 3) MB takover of their govts, and implement Sharia law.

    Key to the success of the plot was Obama convincing Mobarak to resign as Egypt’s president, so that Obama’s MB buddy, Mohammed Morsi could succeed him as the new Egyptian president. See, Morsi also moonlights as the leader of the MB.

    Now, as the Egyptian president, Obama could authorize billions of our tax dollars in “aid” to Egypt, which, was placed right in the hands of new prez Morsi… Money which he, Morsi, as MB leader, put to immediate use to support MB’s Middle East takeover goal.

    The Benghazi consulate actually wasn’t as much a consulate as it was a front for the CIA gun running operation headed up by Stevens, to get the captured Libyan weapons into the hands of al Qaeda.

    The orders for an operation of this type, supplying a known American and Israeli enemy that’s killed 1000s of Americans, with weapons that they will certainly use to, again, kill Americans and Israelis… orders for this operation had to originate from the highest levels of our govt, which would be the POTUS.

    Obviously, aiding and abetting a known enemy of the state is a treasonous act. Even more so if perpetrated by the POTUS.

    So naturally, if a POTUS was involved in such a heinous scheme, he wouldn’t want anyone to find out about it.

    Which may be the “real” reason why additional security was denied the Benghazi U.S. consulate repeatedly in the months leading up the the 9/11 attack. And the POTUS refused to authorize back-up forces to Bhenghazi at any time during the almost 8 hour long massacre leaving 4 Americans dead.

    If the Benghazi investigation is allowed to continue, which the WH’s pit bull Reid is already fighting, the truth will come out.

    If the fact that the Ambassador Stevens was pointman for running guns to al Qaeda, does not come out… then America is already a dictatorship

  • This is such a devastating event.. In a way, I’m shocked at the end result, and in another way I’m not at all. I believe O’bama would do ANYTHING he could to keep this under the radar until after the election. My question would be,, and I hope people do not take this as a racist question, just hope to get an honest answer from everyone: If, at the time, the Commander in Chief was white, and the 4 Americans left there to be slaughtered had been African American, would there be a different outcry from the American public for truthful answers? Do not support or oppose a leader simply for the color of their skin. I don’t care if our President is black, white, or both.. don’t “not support them” because they are black, and don’t “do support them”because they are.That has nothing to do with being the better person to run this coutry. Educatate yourself on issues, foreign polocies and relations, and track records. I believe we are in for a rough 4 years, and whom ever has to clean up this mess in the 5th year will have the hands very full.

  • The whole matter will be drawn out until no one cares anymore. What i don’t understand is how, as a nation, a great majority don’t care that four fellow americans were murdered while begging for help? Why do those in the military keep silent knowing that at least two of their own died while those in command just SAT THERE and watched it unfold? Their silence is a conundrum.

  • R.Framer,

    The corrupt, gutless brass-hats are silent because it is what they are.

    Four died in Benghazi. And, hundreds of young American troops are murdered by Afghan taliban infiltrators. No one cares.

    Of course, we have a Dem president. These murders are less more news-worthy than Abu Graibh.

    The troops were expendable to the Obama Campaign that editted the CIA talking points.

  • Raymond,

    Where does this information come from, that Stevens was supplying arms to al Qaeda?

    Then why would al Qaeda take him out?

  • The first important news item was discussed on a Glen Beck radio show before the anniversary of 9-11.

    The discussion by Mr. Beck and his co-hosts related the questions about the State Department of the Obama administration having talks about releasing the Blind Sheik in jail for bombing the World Trade Center. Subsequent to this topic coming up, the White House released a statement from the Department of Justice which totally ruled out any activity where the prison term of the Blind Sheik would be terminated. He would remain in jail serving his full term.

    Beck and his co-hosts decided that this sounded good. However, they didn’t understand why it was Justice that made the declaration, when it was the State Department that was asserted to be participating in the discussions. They also commented that this item may bare further scrutiny in the future.

    On the anniversary of 9-11, the next play in the game, the murder of the ambassador and three other victims dumped a pile of pieces of the puzzle on the airways. Over the following month there was much confusion as to what happened. Much of the information caused confusion. This was because the news was fragmented and some of it was red herrings designed to throw the concerned public off on the wrong trails.

    After much questioning and leaks from many sources, there has emerged a picture of what happened.

    Armed men attacked the American Embassy and a safe house also used by both embassy staff and American intelligence personnel. It took very aggressive investigative journalism by mainly Fox News, but also by many radio talk shows to sort out what happened.

    The well-armed invaders executed a well-planned attacked which resulted in the trapping of the ambassador in an interior safe room. While this occurred, the embassy compound was blown up and set on fire. The attack lasted for several hours and went from the embassy grounds to the safe house annex located some distance away.

    The embassy security was overwhelmed and no help arrived to resist the invaders. Investigative evidence surfaced that for many weeks prior to 9-11, requests for increased security by the embassy went unheeded or was simply refused. There was even a story that the marine guards were deprived of ammunition for their weapons by the order of the Department of State.

    The ambassador and three brave men (two former navy seals among them) were murdered.

    In the weeks that followed this, the White House from the President and down the chain of command all declared that the attack was a spontaneous action that grew out of a protest about a movie purported to be an insult to Mohammed. This was shown to be untrue, and thus a subterfuge (red herring). The story was changing on a daily basis, because it lacked cohesiveness. It didn’t stand up under questioning. Eventually, all kinds of evidence was gathered and made it appear to be a planned act of terrorism whose success was enhanced by an appalling lack of security.

    After more than forty days, Fox News sorting through the information, presented a step-by-step timeline of the events. A bogus story line asserted by the White House Administration became apparent. The picture cleared-up to show what had really happened.

    Fox News even was able to present to the public how the ambassador died.

    Inside the burning facility, inside the safe room, the ambassador ended up crumpled on the floor. The invaders upon finding him thought he was dead. One of them checked and excitedly reported, “He is not dead! He is breathing!”

    At this announcement, according to Fox News’s special report, the gathered invaders became cheerful and in their language started shouting something like, “God is great, God is great!”

    They scooped up the body and raced him to the closest hospital in an attempt to save his life. Unfortunately he had too much lung damage from smoke inhalation and doctors were not able to save him.

    Now I know that this account of the high points leaves out a lot of the story. And I apologize for skipping over great investigative journalism. There are questions that haven’t been addressed as far as I know.

    Why did this event happen?

    The government administration falsely claimed that it was a spontaneous action to a bogus film. Why?

    People began calling this a scandal and that the government was doing a cover-up. Covering up what?

    I, Columbus Bob, see a picture here that I think answers these questions.

    I believe the key to understanding what this event was all about is to look again at the curious reaction the invaders had when they thought the ambassador was dead and discovered that he was alive. They were happy and cheered about his being alive.

    This caught my attention and struck me as a paradox. Weren’t they trying to kill him? If yes, why did the discovery he was still breathing make them so happy? Why did they do what they could to save his life?

    I believe they were not trying to kill him, but trying to capture him. This raid looks like a botched kidnapping. They wanted him for some reason.

    I believe they intended to trade him for the Blind Sheik, and that the administration of the United States prepared the scene for a kidnapping that would allow the release of the Blind Sheik.

    The steps leading up to 9-11 would follow the pattern by the State Department’s lack of “concern” about security, and subsequent standing down during the event failing to rescue the victims. The post events looking like a cover-up that would fit exactly what the U.S. Government would need to conceal from the citizens in a foiled kidnapping scam.

  • There has been info out today that the military are getting very angry about this as a coverup; they’re talking about how quickly they could have gotten to Libya, but they didn’t know – that they never got an order. Some military retirees said that only the President can order troops into a foreign country, so being they didn’t get an order to respond, it is all obama’s responsibility.
    In addition alot of retired military and CIA “brass” / leaders, shared today they believe Petreaus was blackmailed about this…. , and after resigning he’s trying to get the info out. That if there was info that even mentioned a top CIA name aligned with the investigation that Holder as AG would have been notified within hours. That means that Holder got the info within weeks after investigation started (at the latest) – and that if Holder got the info it would have been shared with the President within hours (even if he was out of the country). And if Obama wasn’t aware, it would have been to allow him to say he didn’t have meaningful knowledge of it, and allow him to deny it.

  • Taking out Gaddafi was not Obama’s idea. It was the two European thugs, Cameron and Sarkozy out for Libya’s assets that were driving it. On the American side, cackling Lady Macbeth at State who thought she could chalk it up to her resume was doing the heavy lifting. Obama seems detached from all this as apparently he was never full on for Gaddafi’s removal.

  • Clinton, Holder and Obama: first they run hundreds of assault weapons to drug terrorists to get “incidents” to justify rescinding the Second Amendment.

    Now, they set up an ambassador kidnapping to smoke-screen the release of a terrorist superstar.

    All you useful idiots that vote for these filthy animals . . .

  • That is the first time I’ve seen the hapless Sarkozy referred to as a “thug”.

    The conspiracy theories listed above are fascinating but spinning far in advance of the facts.

    For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.

    Benghazi is a tragedy, all the more so because it was 1) predictable and 2) unprepared for.

    State had lots of warnings but took no steps to address the concerns. The “why” relates to misguided political calculations with the Administration itself. We shallsee how it played out that day but I suspect that we will find that lethargy, sloth, and indecision controlled the President’s staff. They spent their time discussing the political ramifications and lost the moment to to their duty.

    You give the Administration far too much credit my friends.

    The French as “thugs”… Putin, maybe, but the limp wristed French, only in their defense of their language.

  • “For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.”

    Agreed. A nice two word shorthand to explain anything this administration does is “political expidency”. The only thing good about Obama still being in the White House for the next four years is that he will be there to reap many of the disasters his fecklessness has sown.

  • So Petreaus has obtained counsel:

    Now THAT isan interesting development. I read that to mean that he is going it on his own and has concluded that he has no friends. Everything he knows, classified or not, is now known to someone outside of the decision-making circle, someone with an ethical duty to protect Petreaus’ interest.

    This is about to get very interesting.

  • President Shaggy breaks his silence, “It wasn’t me!”

  • I can see that there are many uncharitable minds on this forum and amongst many Americans! Phew! Why are some people already praying that the Benghazi issue should crash on Obama’s head with a view to impeaching him? You may not like President Obama for one reason or the other but it is quite uncharitable to pray for his misfortune just because your preferred candidate lost in the presidential election! I just cannot understand some Americans. You preach democracy to the rest of the world and virtually arm-twist other countries to uphold democratic tenets! And here are most of you not practicing what you preach when it comes to American situations. Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots? This is where I respect Paul Riyan, Mitt Romney’s running mate who said that Obama ran a better election and won ‘fair and square’! That should be the spirit. It was laughable to read the calls for secession by some States in the US, all because they did not have it their way! Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy. The next we shall see is for these disgruntled Americans to use any subterranean means, fair or foul, to unseat the nation’s president and so achieving what they could not achieve through the ballot box! That’s a shame! Americans, grow up! It is now time for even developing countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe to preach to you on the need to imbibe the principles of democracy! What a shame!

  • “Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?”

    Well now that you mention it, many of them, yes. Considering the results of his first term I can think only an idiot, a leftist ideologue or someone who wishes for government “freebies” would want more of the same.

    “Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy”

    Rubbish. Elections are a method to determine who holds office. The outcome of an election does not eliminate criticism of the side that won. If it did, that would be a betrayal of democracy.

  • I know the 50.1% that gave the worst liar a second term are both moronic and evil.

  • Chi, You entirely miss the point of oppositions and, so, don’t understand what makes democratic systems work.

    All parties have their share of wise and foolish, well-intentioned and ill, well meaning and mlicious tyrants, etc. A system that presumes good intent and right action and that has no one watching those in charge is doomed. The “opposition” i s absolutely essential to democracy, even if the party you favor is in power.

    Benghazi matters because four Americans died because of what appears to be gross negligence. It matters because it appears that the Administration lied to Congress – a very serious matter indeed. It matters because it appears that our enemies directly assaulted our government and paid no consequence, potentially emboldening them.

    Withou an opposition, the party in power need not correct its defects. If you don’t understand that you are no friend to democracy.

  • Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?

    About 3/4 of the populace are willing to tell the pollster they do not follow public affairs and many of those who do lack a mental filing system which helps them make sense of things. They consume news reports but remember little. It is not that they are ‘idiots’. They know what they need to to earn a living and keep their kids out of jail. They often can make sense of little that is not palpable in their daily life. Their votes are distributed across the political spectrum.

    The difficulty we appear to be facing is that voting is now quite insensitive to conditions and results and people cast ballots as expressions of identity, filtering what they read and hear according to their prejudices about particular politicians. This is not a novel phenomenon and has long been common, but it appears that such voters are a large enough mass that the connection between conditions and balloting is broken. The capacity of the collectivity to aright itself (already frayed) is thus diminished. This occurs at a time when the calibre of our political elite has declined dramatically. Also, discourse about politics has grown utterly meretricious. (See, for example, the witless and gratuitous flaying of Sarah Palin).

  • And THAT, my friends, is why I keep coming back to TAC.

    I’ve been trying to articulate what we are seeing but I couldn’t make sense of it. Art Deco’s statement seems to me to be spot on.

  • Chi: Please bare in mind that although though the President Obama is The President of the U.S., he is not above the US law. And there is a real possibility he may have broken it, or failed to uphold his oath of office to protect the Constitution and the U.S.

  • G-Veg, if you were to check the timeline of the ouster of Gaddafi you’ll see that it was largely driven by Cameron and Sarkozy. Pretty unfortunate for him that he took the benign George Bush as representative of the West.

  • True enough Ivan. That gets to a major flaw in the Democrat Party’s base’s logic.

    To the Democrat Party’s core constituencies, Bush’s Iraq War was a war for oil and not in defense of freedom but Obama’s Libya War (we should be honest, there is small war and big war but the distinction between “war”, “police action”, and other euphamisms are distinctions without a difference) was a blow against tyranny. This views is ignorant and myopic. Libya’s oil was the point of the Libya’n war and US Allies, such as they are, were the primary benifactors.

    Either securing access to energy is a legitimate State interest, lawfully protected by force of arms or it is not. The Democrat Party wants it both ways: protecting oil interests under their president while being able to upbraid Republicans for the same impulses. We should call them on it.

    As for Sarkozy et al being “thugs”, it is the characterization of the French as “thuggish” that I find terribly funny.

    My grandmother’s favorite uncle died at Dunkirk and she never forgave the French for folding and leaving Brits to die. I suppose hiding in the celler due to air raids on Bristol didn’t raise the French in her estimation either. She used to tell this joke:

    She would ask “why are the French the only people in the world with tanned palms?” then shewould throw her hands up over her head in surrender.

    It was terribly funny to see her act it out and her views of the French as cowardly linger in my consciousness. Now that I’m older and better grasp how disastrous WWI was to the French I’m able to be more charitable to their folding to the Germans in WWII. France had the fighting spirit beaten out of them and they never recovered.

    Of course, the absurd French nationalism, that Gaulist knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells of American Imperialism is all the more intolerable. I haven’t forgotten the France wouldn’t let the US overfly France to bomb Ghadaffi under Reagan but thought it entirely proper to actually invade this time.

    The word “thug” makes me think of Zimbabwe’s regime, not of France. For a laugh on this subject, type “Black Adder French” as a YouTube search.

  • Speaking of France, a good movie is “Joyeux Noel” (Happy Christmas) which is about World War I, even if it is sort of a peacenik movie but not excessively so, it’s cinematography and relative authenticity is grand. Holiday movie. For those who don’t know, yes, it is about the opposing sides getting together and celebrating on Christmas eve, the first year of that war, a historic fact.

    Worth perusing is how it seems French casualties in World War I are quite a bit higher than any allied power. So, perhaps some of the problem with World War II was that first World War was its preface. Poisoned gas and trench warfare, that must have been hard.

    That movie by the way, starts with the speeches by the Children which are taken from real statements made at that time I believe. If one watches the movie, those statements seem to imply England stirred up (not saying began or created) that war and sentiment. This I do not know and can not say however those statements by a French, English and German child may be read here:

    “English poem

    To rid? the map of every trace

    Of Germany and of the Hun,

    We must exterminate that race.

    We must not leave a single one.

    Heed not their children’s cries.

    Best slay all now, the women, too

    Or else, someday again they’ll rise

    Which, if they’re dead, they cannot do.”

    Those are very serious words.

    The movie’s contingent of British are in fact, Scottish so one feels a bit detached from the British Empire part.

    England and France have a long history of wars prior to these modern times. There’s a lot here.

  • There are supposed to be many reasons why the French suffered a great defeat in WW11.


    But the ‘cowardice’ of the French is not one of them, I’ve read an account that the Germans
    rated the average French soldier the highest of all the Allied soldiers.

  • You would have to be brave indeed to take up arms against the Nazis after France surrendered.

    I generalize and tar unfairly. France was a shattered hulk when Germany invaded. She had left her marshall spirit in the trenches, had too few men to defend her long borders and failed to take Hitler’s threat seriously until it was too late.

    I diverted the discussion to make a nationality joke. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Red Nightmare 1962

Friday, November 16, AD 2012

An interesting artifact of the Cold War from 1962.  Jack Webb hosts a Department of Defense film in which a normal American citizen goes to sleep and has a nightmare in which America has been transformed into a Commmunist state.  It has a Twilight Zone quality to it and all it needs is Rod Serling as the host instead of “Just the Facts Ma’am” Webb.  I will leave to the viewers any invidious  comparisons with contemporary America!

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Red Nightmare 1962

  • I shall have to watch this video tonight when I come home from neutrons ‘R us. Thanks, Donald. It is a shame we are throwing away our religious heritage as a nation for a bowl of soup as Esau did. In a way, Religion is what bind us to God and yet what gives us our freedom. But even in the old evil Roman Empire, while yet martyrs, men like St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius were still free. I hope, however, it doesn’t come to that.

  • First, they’ll establish a political military force and build the concentration camps they have already legislated.

    Then, they’ll confiscate the fire arms.

    Today, we have financial repression and monetary fascism.

    “Financial Repression”: running inflation higher than interest rates to reduce government debt loads. It papers over debt-burdened economy. Fed gravely fears deflation. Connection between expanding monetary base (orienting money) and employment growth is broken. Inflation incentivizes buying before dollar value drops. No longer is it for capital investment and hiring. In this way, the State robs citizens of wealth and income, above and beyond the onerous burdens of taxation and regulations that are crushing them. The State cannot “print its way to prosperity”. The opposite is true: this policy diminishes the economy’s ability to generate true wealth. If anything, “we” are printing ourselves into the poorhouse. Now, they are running unlimited QEternity.

    “Monetary Fascism”: financial interests control the State for the advancement of financial class. It is anti-free market and anti-capitalistic. The diversion operates in plain sight. It began around 1970. This differs from traditional Fascism: where State and industry work together for the advancement of the State. Today the financial/banking class enforces this ideology through the media and government with the ruthlessness of the Church during the Dark Ages: to question is to be a heretic.

    The Fed ran up the stock market; then it ran up the housing bubble; now they’re running up the stock market again; and next they’ll run up the housing bubble again. The credit markets are also in a bubble.

    The higher education bubble never paused or was suspended.

    And, each bubble burst is blamed on the free market.

    As George Orwell, said “Imagine a boot smashing a human face forever.”

  • What a sunny, cheerie prospect T-Shaw. Thank you for brightening the day!

Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

Friday, November 16, AD 2012


Part 14 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Fordham President Joseph McShane, SJ, knows who his real enemy is.  Today Fordham is hosting the well known proponent of euthanasia and abortion Peter Singer at a conference charmingly entitled:  “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals: Moving the Conversation Forward.”  Singer is fine according to McShane, but he bitterly criticized the College Republicans recently at Fordham for sponsoring a speech by Ann Coulter.  Robert Shibley, at Professor William Jacobson’s magnicent blog College Insurrection, gives us the juicy details:

Fordham University is in a bit of a bind.

After loudly proclaiming his “disgust” with the “hate speech” of conservative pundit Ann Coulter in an email to all students, in the process slamming the Fordham College Republicans—his own students—as immature bigots who lack character, Fordham President Joseph McShane, S.J., is now faced with defending his administration’s invitation to philosopher and infanticide advocate Peter Singer to participate in a panel on “animal ethics.”

This puts Fordham in a tough spot.

Father McShane could have allowed the marketplace of ideas to function on its campus without engaging in an electronic temper tantrum. (To his credit, he did not ban Coulter from campus, although the College Republicans clearly saw which way the wind was blowing and canceled the event themselves—here’s one student’s reaction to that.) But he didn’t, and now Fordham is stuck trying to justify McShane’s statement.

In response to an email from a College Insurrection reader provided to us, Bob Howe, Senior Director of Communications at Fordham, penned the following response, attempting to explain why having Peter Singer advocating his positions on campus is totally different from having Ann Coulter advocate her positions:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

  • What is it: double standard, hypocrisy, or stupidity?

    To quote that famed American cultural icon, Bart Simpson, “I’m insulted!”

    Infanticide, sodomy, etc. are promoted.

    Freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, etc. are censored.

    Anyhow, the grads will be lucky to get part-time work at “Bed, Bath and Beyond.”

  • Not being a canon scholar I’d like to know if a school can be stripped of its Catholic name? What protections are there against anyone just calling themselves Catholic regardless of the reality?

  • Peter Singer also sees nothing wrong with bestiality.

  • Paul D, i totally agree with you. The word “Catholic” should be legally protected so that entities like Notre Dame that honor pro-abortion public figures will be forced to stop capitalizing on Catholic identity.

  • I know that this is one of those stories I’m supposed to get really angry about, but I can’t. First of all, the name given is wrong. Drop the “Conference with Peter Singer” part. That’s significant because he’s one of four panelists (another of whom is an editor of First Things). The topic is the Christian view of animal rights, not infanticide. I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.

  • I don’t disagree, Pinky, at least not passionately so. Yet Singer’s views are so odious that it is hard to just set them aside. If he were a white supremacist would we do that?

  • “The fact that the College Republicans backed down on inviting Coulter in the
    face of the attack by McShane helps explain how the election was lost this year.
    No fortitude, no victory.”

    According to the statement released by the College Republicans and signed by
    the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham CR had already decided
    to drop Ms. Coulter before Fr. McShane’s 15 minute hate was emailed:

    “We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
    became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
    before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
    cancelled”. — Fordham College Republicans

    Folding like a bunch of cheap tents– it’ll be a wonder if Fordham’s College
    Republicans will ever be able to get a prospective speaker to return their
    phone calls again. If they are a fair gauge of the caliber of the future leaders
    of the Republican party, we need to get used to losing elections. No fortitude,
    no victory, indeed.

  • “I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.”

    Peter Singer is an advocate of killing handicapped kids, leaving aside his vociferous advocacy of abortion and euthanasia. He should no more be invited to attend a panel discussion at a Catholic college than any of the murderers with degrees after their names who served the Third Reich. Fordham gives this monster legitimacy by treating him as if he has a right to sit among decent human beings.

    If anyone thinks I exaggerate, go here for an overview on Singer:

    “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
    Peter Singer

  • Coincidently, last evening on the LIRR, I was reading my freshman Ancient History text. One innovation in Sparta the institution of a council to usurp Spartan fathers’ right to decide whether an infant should die.

    Fordham, You’re promoting ancient, pagan barbarism, Baby. (No pun intended.)

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • What is happening to Catholic education? Fordham can’t stand to have an advocate for free speech yet has no problem with one whose views are totally opposed to anything the Catholic church stands for? Georgetown covers crucifixes so as not to offend a president who says he’s a Christian and welcomes him even though he is a proponent of allowing abortion survivors to die? Notre Dame – I can’t even read anything about them any more. Breaks my heart.

    I am most disappointed in the young republicans. Invite or don’t invite as you will but once invited, stand by your invitation.

  • It’s a lot different than one, Vince Lombardi went to Fordham and was in their blocks of granite. And people wonder about the “Catholic vote” ?? when we have things like this going on?? Thank goodness, St. Thomas St. Paul seems to keep to Catholic values, I’ve heard different about St. Catherine’s there but can’t be sure.

  • Richard Cancemi
    November 18, 2012 at 8:47 am · Reply

    John Collingnon, in his comment, refers to the Jesuits as a sect. This is not true; they are a Religious Order called “The Society of Jesus, hence the SJ after there names. They were founded by St. Ignatious of Loyola whose mission he vowed was to defend the Faith. In addition to the vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, all those who joined him took a fourth vow to be Protectors of the Faith and the Pope. They were the intellectuals of the Church’s teachings and hence were also teachers in Universities. Their schools were well respected.

    During the Protestant Reformation in England they were hunted down and killed savagely because of their defense of Catholic Doctrine. As Protestantism spread throughout Europe, so too were other Religious Orders and Catholics in general. The Jesuits, in particular, were feared because of their superior intellectual abilities.

    Somewhere along their life span of the Order, some Jesuits seemed to have lost their way and had and have become revolutionary radicals. They turned their back to the Church. They were even infiltrated by Communists during Russia’s subversive reign. Many seemed to have embraced Marxist Socialism as part of their thinking and have lost their way. No all, but many.

    Father McShane appears to be among the lost, radical Jesuits supporting Secularism over Religiosity. He is certainly not representative of Catholicism nor is he representative of the original mission of his Jesuit Order. However far too many Jesuits have “lost their way”. Perhaps their intellectual training has a produced in them a hubris that dissolves the humility that is urged in their training.

    Jesuits have been known as “trouble-making revolutionaries” for a long time but those (and there are far too many) are not representatives of Catholicism. They embrace the “injustice” inherent in Marxist Socialism and lose sight of “true justice for all”. “Social Justice” is a Socialist term which they embrace. It means taking (stealing) from some to give to others. It is not to be confused with Christian Charity which is voluntary.

    Father McShane needs to take time out and meditate on his Catholicism and the mission of his Order. His support of the anti-religious ideas of the secularist Peter Singer are inexcusable as a Jesuit and Catholic. He, himself, should make use of the Confessional, if he can get beyond his own personal hubris, and seek absolution for his sinful support of heresy. At the very least, he should be ashamed of himself!

    But please, do not equate Fr. McShane and others like him with Catholic beliefs.

    I, personally would not send my children to a Jesuit School because they can’t be trusted to be objective.

    (There is an interesting book called:”The Jesuits”, written by a former Jesuit, which is very enlightening.)

November 15, 1862: Lincoln Enjoins Observance of the Sabbath

Thursday, November 15, AD 2012

Well this would give the ACLU fits today!  On November 15, 1862 Lincoln sent out the following general order:




The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service. The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the divine will demand that Sunday labor in the army and navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.

The discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer nor the cause they defend be imperilled by the profanation of the day or name of the Most High. “At this time of public distress,” adopting the words of Washington in 1776, “men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.” The first general order issued by the Father of his Country after the Declaration of Independence indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should ever be defended:

“The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”


Continue reading...

2 Responses to November 15, 1862: Lincoln Enjoins Observance of the Sabbath

  • In the UK, the First Article of War has always been, “1. All officers in command of Her Majesty’s ships shall cause public worship of Almighty God to be solemnly, orderly and reverently performed in their respective ships, and shall take care that prayers and preaching, by the chaplains of those ships, be performed diligently and that the Lord’s Day be observed.”

  • Beautiful, timely, and a powerful example of grace given from prayer.
    The painting is of an agony in the garden.

Good News For Modern Democrats

Thursday, November 15, AD 2012


One of the more nauseating features of the reelection of the South Side Messiah, is that we will have four more years  of the cult of personality that is promoted by some of Obama’s more deranged acolytes.  A current example is The Gospel According to Apostle Barack by Barbara A. Thompson.

The book description of this tome:

Yes, Barack had worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, especially those who elected him in 2008. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or “heaven here on earth” Then, as I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor. Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.

Hmmm, I wonder what parables would be in the Gospel of Barack?  The Good Abortionist?  The Prodigal Differently Gendered Male Product of Conception?  The Civil Union at Cana?  The Ten Foolish Sluts?  The Unionized Laborers in the Vinyard?  The Unjust Republican Judge?

Barack would perform miracles in the Gospel:  walking on a sea of debt;  transforming water into taxes;  raising the dead because they hadn’t paid their death taxes;  transforming bread and wine into (skip that one, Apostle Biden snarfed them down).

The teachings of the Apostle Barack of course would take pride of place:

1.  Render unto Caesar Obama everything.

2.  Love Barack and love thy fellow Leftist.

3.  Blessed are the bribe givers for they shall receive their reward.

4.  Suffer the little children.

5.  The wages of sin are fun.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Good News For Modern Democrats

  • This is exactly how at some future time the final anti-Christ will receive the accolades and adulation of millions. People wAant to be deluded today just as people in Germany in the early 20th century wanted to be delided. I did NOT say Obama is THE anti-Christ. But John’s first epistle does say that there will be many little anti-Christs in the Last Days. Whether these are the “Last Days” or not remain to be seen.

  • The author of this book was on Michael Medved’s show and was totally owned by one of Medved’s best callers, Tom from Glendora, who is a Catholic. He had 3 questions expressing doubt that Obama could legitimately be called an apostle. Her response in the form of a rant was angry, indignant and didn’t answer any of the questions, but amounted in short to “We won”, so way to speak power to truth.

    His third question was about the HHS Mandate violating religious freedom and it seemed to get under her skin the most. Her response was legalistic in nature pointing out that all this is legal at this point, laws on the books, ostensibly forgetting that slavery used to be legal in our country. Again: a power cult speakin’ power to truth.

  • I believe the author of the book is quite serious Art. Obviously I am not.

  • What a misnamed site. I am an American catholic and you do not speak for me. Your columns are hateful and biased. Jesus is very disappointed I am sure. How dare you refer to Vatican II as if you derive some heritage from it. Your closed minded and hateful commentary is in direct violation of the spirit of Vatican II. You should be ashamed.
    But you won’t be. You’ll either ignore me or call me names or put me down with some sort of snark that only you and your hypocritical readers will find worthwhile.

  • B. Franklin: “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.”

    That which got him re-elected: The fruits of Barrack’s tireless labors for his constituencies and a more justified America:

    • Family Median dropped 8.2% since St. Barrack took over, an average drop of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started June 2009, 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, it’s $3.84.

    • 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.

    Truth, justice, and the American Way: Just about the only people better off are corporate big-wigs who saw corporate profits climb over 50% in Obama’s “recovery”; and investors, who benefited from doubling the Dow industrials from its March 2009 lows.

  • Now I get it.

    Barrack spent the last four years bringing us the “good news.”

    The next four years, he will make America “well and truly blessed.”

  • “You’ll either ignore me or call me names or put me down with some sort of snark that only you and your hypocritical readers will find worthwhile.”

    Run out and get your copy of the book today Jeff. If you make a large enough contribution to the Southside Messiah I am sure he would be willing to autograph it for you. ( I trust you will find the snark in the reply sufficient.)

  • I think “Jeff” is the issue of some sort of spam generator.

  • Jeff forgot to capitalize the word Catholic. Or maybe not.

    “Jesus is very disappointed, I am sure.” It’s curious that lefties always know how Our Lord feels about things, and they know that he does not approve of us even when we point out contradictions to His own Gospel message.

  • Jeff, it would have been nice–genuinely good-hearted–if you had not just randomly dropped into a comment thread to vent against the site and its readers. How do your insults either embody or advance your views?

  • And here I thought Dale Price was pranking everyone by stringing together cliches. Too heavy handed for DP. Too self-aware for Todd Flowerday. Who could it be?

  • I would like to know from Jeff specifically what is so hateful about this blog site, its articles and the comments thereto. Closed minded and hateful commentary almost always gets a thorough rebuttal here. As for name calling, I do not think that anyone has done that to Jeff.

    By the way, Jesus’ reaction to money changers making profit off the vulnerable was to whip them into submission. One may hope and pray that that same thing happens to the purveyors of profitable infanticide at Planned Parenthood. And Jesus talked far more about the punishment of the fires of hell than He did about Paradise. In Luke 13, when the disciples approached Him with how Pilate had mingled the blood of rebels wth that of his animal sacrifices, Jesus told them that unless they repent, even worse would happen to them. Jesus spoke more about holiness than about love, explaining that unless our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, we cannot expect to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus preached the Gospel of Conversion and Repentance, NOT the gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price. He said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, and everything – even our very lives – belong to God.

    But I realize those very Christian ideals are radical to the liberal progressive Democrat for whom no Messiah but the Obamessiah will suffice. Of course, that’s called idolatry and violates the first Great Commandment that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament: Love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.

  • Jeff,

    Quick: What is the Meditation for the First Joyful Mstery of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Vrigin Mary?

    It’s all Sandy’s fault.

    I am retiring the word “unexpectedly” and replacing it with “Surprise!”

    Surprise! OH and PA suffer the worst.

    Surprise! (from Zerohedge) A week after the election, unemployment numbers hit a new high: Get ready for the “it’s all Sandy’s fault” barrage, because the post-reelection status quo sure will desperately need it today. The latest initial claims data posted a multi-year high 104,548 surge in weekly NSA claims from 361,800 to 466,348, and even the Seasonally-adjusted number soaring from 361K to 439K on expectations of a 375K print.

    I was at St. Francis of Assisi Church an hour ago. Jesus isn’t ashamed of me.

  • Infidels the lot of you.
    Reality is what we say it is, and you are stupid idiots to think it is found in the Bible, which states Another’s Law and Teaching, or your Church’s Magisterium and Tradition.
    Learn manners and behavior from the undersigned.
    – signed,
    Thoughtless Bully Pulpit (message emphasized by pointing at you)

  • Nah–I have a little more panache than that. I’d have thrown in something like “siblings in Christ” to punch it up.

  • “I think “Jeff” is the issue of some sort of spam generator.”

    I don’t know. I think a spam generator would also have called us racist.

  • I think “Jeff” is the issue of some sort of spam generator.

    Not spam, though that is where any followup comments from him will go.

  • Hateful and biased columns?

    He must have been reading mine, lol.

    Seriously, the synopsis for this book is one of the most hilarious things I’ve read recently. I shouldn’t laugh at mental illness, though.

  • Hmmmmmmmmm — perhaps the author received her inspiration from The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama (also not a parody).

  • Apparently, the “Apostle Barack” is winning converts to his Gospel of Death:

    It wasn’t that long ago that we were hearing that the pro-life view was ascendant and perhaps even the majority view.

  • I used to think quite highly of Rasmussen until the last election. Considering that he predicted a D-2 electorate and the electorate was D-6, I think I will take all polls done by him for the foreseeable future with a boulder of salt.

    For what it is worth, Gallup, which also didn’t cover itself with glory in the last election, back in May had a poll which showed a pro-life majority:

  • “Apparently, the “Apostle Barack” is winning converts to his Gospel of Death:”

    Just as his refusal to defend marriage is moving people to accept SSM. Leadership does have an effect on the public for good or evil.

  • “Hateful”: That was me before youse guys started moderating moi.

    Anyhow, the tolerant, progressive dons at Jesuitical Fordham U. remind me of Jeff.

    They condemn you as evil and ban you from speaking on campus if you were ever so horrid as to believe in free markets, private initiative, and other execrable principles, such as personal responsibility, e.g., Ann Coulter.

    But, they totally welcome you to push on campus infanticide, e.g., Peter Singer.

  • I am truly waxing hateful this evening.

    About double, 2,500,000, unemployed adults are living with the parents since Obama brought us the “good news.”

    And, going on three weeks later, there are still thousands of Obama voters without heat, lights or water in NYC. One blurted out, “Where you been?”

    Unlimited government: limited ability to help.

  • The post linked below on Hot Air references a CNN poll in August on abortion which shows a majority for pro-life:

    After this year’s election however, I think polls have about as much predictive value as reading chicken entrails or plain old-fashioned guessing.

  • there are still thousands of Obama voters without heat, lights…

    “heck of a job …” he he . I wonder how many of those “science and reality based” Democrats now understand that in the face of Mother Nature’s wrecking fury all our plans, contingencies and engineering abilities amount to nothing.

  • Take heart Donald, Dostoevsky shared your skepticism:

    It seemed to me that calculation was superfluous, and by no means possessed of the importance which certain other players attached to it, even though they sat with ruled papers in their hands, whereon they set down the coups, calculated the chances, reckoned, staked, and–lost exactly as we more simple mortals did who played without any reckoning at all. The Gamblers.

  • ‘ And, going on three weeks later, there are still thousands of Obama voters without heat, lights or water in NYC. One blurted out, “Where you been?”

    Unlimited government: limited ability to help.’

    1. Numbers of voters:
    – doesn’t matter as evidenced by getting more votes than there are voters
    – doesn’t matter because no R’s vote in certain machines anyway
    2. Compassion for suffering victims beyond words as seen in the union pitching in, er – and the charity buck stopping somewhere unseen, both going unreported to the victims during photo-ops. Schlepping things to people is work for what?, rewards in Heaven or a happy heart? That’s not in the above book.
    3. Governing stuff around the world stage – nobody’s business where. NYC is on the list and blaming dares not happen in 2012.

  • There’s also Barak’s miracle of the multiplication of the taxes and regulations. Plus, who can forget when Barak brought the blind and the sick to heel? Drove the moneychangers from Goldman Sachs into the temple? Or when Barak called out and the tax was raised and came forth from the tomb?

    And while fasting in the economic growth desert, Barak yielded to temptations; he transformed a stone into taxes then from high atop the temple he threw himself off the fiscal cliff and was held aloft by rising taxes…

  • “except this four star review by someone who has seen the Truth”

    That, too, sounds like total snark to me. Maybe I don’t run with the right crowd or something but not a single liberal Democrat I know (and I do know some) would take this book seriously.

  • Don, I am simply floored by that Book and by Jeff’s outburst. What in the name of the Holy Angels has happened toyour beloved U.S. of America??? But then, what would an old grandma like me know except remember that Hitler was elected by a landslide majority. Prayers for your country are ongoing.

  • “That, too, sounds like total snark to me.”

    Ya think? 🙂

    Linked below is a liberal Democrat who I am sure has his copy reserved:

    People who aren’t nut cases and voted for Obama actually concern me far more than the Obama cultists Elaine. Rather on the same grounds when a client in a criminal matter advises me that he was drunk or stoned while doing something incredibly stupid, and my stock response is to reply, “Well, it is a relief at least to know that you weren’t stone cold sober when you did it!”

  • “Prayers for your country are ongoing.”

    I appreciate the prayers Mary. Unfortunately America and the world is going to go through a very rough patch indeed before any of this will get any better. Christ, in His mercy, will see us through.

  • Here’s a follow-up at HotAir on the Rasmussen poll showing a heavy pro-abortion tilt:

    Looks like it’s more than just Rasmussen showing a shift to the pro-death side during this election.

  • Again, leaders make a difference. I wonder where we’ll be four years from now.

  • If American history is a guide, probably rejoicing in the repudiation of the Democrats at the polls. It is very rare in American history since FDR for a party to hold on to the White House for more than two terms, happening precisely once in 1988.

  • “All attempts to create heaven on earth lead to hell on earth.” Camus

  • Surprise!

    More good news!

    Super-storm Sandy claims more victims: Ding Dongs, Twinkies, et al.

    Next week’s 18,500 new, Hostess unemployment claims will be Sandy’s fault, too.

    Union struggles for heaven in the here-and-now played no part.


    Has it finally come to an ignominious end?
    Must liberty and religious freedom we now rescind?
    Our Founding Fathers must now be assuredly aghast,
    If they knew their City on a Hill is now in the past.

    America was a definitive faith exercise.
    The United States is now decidedly otherwise.
    Compromise between good and evil can never prevail.
    Without the God our nation trusted, life is no avail.

    The Declaration of Independence we could once trust.
    Life, liberty, and happiness have been overcome with lust.
    Seeds of democracy’s destruction have now germinated.
    Every phase of government has been permeated.

    The American dream is now only a socialist scheme.
    It has then become a nightmare we can only blaspheme.
    American traitors committed a scandalous sin.
    They should never be allowed to enjoy freedom again.

    We must resurrect revolution to save us once more.
    Tyranny is something we have always known to deplore.
    God help return religious freedom to our native shore.
    So we can ask You to bless America evermore.

    Bob Rowland

  • I am very glad I had an empty stomach when I read the description of the book.

Where We Go From Here: Republicans and a Changing Demographic

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

There has already been endless commentary on where we go from here after the recent election.  For my own part, I can only offer a few thoughts.

If the numbers are correct, the Republicans didn’t lose the election because of failure to convince their own.  By many measures, Romney out performed both McCain and George W. Bush in the Republican Party stronghold subgroups.  Consider that Romney took upwards of 59% of the white vote, while McCain garnered 56% and Bush took 57% and 56% in each of his election years.  (Source:  Gallup).  On the other hand, numerous sources have documented the decline in the Hispanic vote for Republicans of the last several decades.

The reason for the lost election, in part, is the changing demographics of the nation.  The subgroups in which Republicans have performed, and continue to perform well, are declining in their representation as a percent of the American people, whereas the demographic subgroups in which the Democrats typically perform well are experiencing an increase in their percent share of the population.  The dilemma, it seems, is that these demographic changes are on a trajectory that seems unlikely to change, which spells a particular problem for the Republican Party in years to come.  Mitt Romney lost the popular vote by less than three million votes, but ABC news reported on election night that if the percent of vote for each party in the various demographic subgroups stays the same, the Republicans will lose the 2020 election by more than fourteen million votes.

What this suggests is that the Republicans need to think carefully about how to attract votes on which they have not yet had to rely.  As Catholics, this should concerns us, because a very real possibility is that some within the party will push for a more relaxed stance on social issues, particularly abortion and same-sex marriage.  It doesn’t help that President Obama, after insisting in 2008 that abortion need not be a divisive issue and that we can all agree about the need to reduce the number of abortions, made it the issue of the closing weeks in the election cycle.  If the Republican Party puts forth a candidate that is in favor abortion and same sex marriage, Catholics who are interested in following teachings of the magisterium will be left without a candidate for whom they can cast a vote.  There will inevitably be a third party, but for many of us, this is not at all desirable.  Indeed, there was a time in the 2008 primary when we thought this would happen, had Rudy Giuliani maintained his early momentum.

It could also be that the party will become softer on religious freedom.  As American becomes more and more secularized, what was once a “fundamental right” will no longer be seen as important.  When the country was founded, virtually everybody had a vested interest in having their religious freedom both codified in the Constitution and defended in the public square.  But “times are-a-changin’,” and there are a growing number of people who are militantly opposed to organized religion.  It used to be that the atheists would keep to themselves and be content to simply laugh at us, but now they are going more and more on the offensive.  If there aren’t enough people who care about the freedom to practice their religion, then it will be difficult indeed to defend against attacks that seek to dismantle that liberty, particularly if the attacks are cloaked in the pursuit of a perceived greater freedom.

I propose that conservative Catholics be proactive in this regard.  Rather than waiting for suggestions that we bend on social issues, it is time that we put forward our own: it is time to take up the issue of immigration.  Now, I am the first to admit that this is an issue where people of good will can disagree, that the implementation of the principle differs from the principle itself, which is why it is not considered one of the “non-negotiables.”  However, we all know that this is the one area that we take the biggest hit from the American episcopacy.  Further, I really believe that this is low hanging fruit in some regards.  I think we can push forward with a reform agenda without compromising basic principles.

However, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it simply will not do to wait until four years from now.  We cannot hope to convince the nation of our seriousness to address this issue just months before an election. We cannot even wait until the midterm elections.  The time is now, and here is what I propose to our Republican representatives in Congress:

The financial cliff about which we have read so much in the last couple months is just around the corner.  The Bush era tax cuts are on the line.  The Republicans rightly want to renew all of these cuts, whereas the Democrats only want to renew those that don’t affect the wealthy.  I am not an economist, so I am not equipped to fully discuss the impact of each position.  However, it seems to me that the Democrats have enough political capital at the moment to push their agenda through.  I suggest that the Republicans in Congress recognize this and make a deal with the President.  We (meaning the Republican leadership) will accept his plan for the Bush era tex cuts, but we want assurance that (1) the very first issue tackled after the new year is a serious immigration reform package, and (2) we want to be a part of it.  We want our ideas heard, and we want credited with them.

From that point on, the Republican need to maintain both commitment and compassion as the package is assembled.  They need to stand up for the principle of basic human dignity and not appear to the stonewall the process.  The Republicans have been successfully portrayed by the opposition as the “Party of ‘No.’”  That image needs to be disassembled methodically and meticulously.

It may involve some compromise, and the reforms that are put in place may not be perfect by Republican standards.  However, if we don’t put forward this area as one in which we can grow and one in which we can take some leadership, there will be pressure from others to “compromise” on other issues, and these will be ones that will violate our Catholic consciences.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Where We Go From Here: Republicans and a Changing Demographic

  • I think if the Democrats want to take the nation over a fiscal cliff the Republicans should not stand in their way. The Senate Democrats haven’t even proposed a budget in four years. Now they want Republicans to share in the onus of raising taxes which would do precisely nothing in addressing our fiscal catastrophe: no sale.

    Promises from Obama aren’t worth the hot air he uses to make them. Any agreement for amnesty on immigration would end up involving only amnesty and no border enforcement. That is a non-starter with the Republican base. From a social justice standpoint I really wonder about the morality of doing anything that would inevitably lead to more illegal immigration at a time when 23 million Americans can’t find work.

    Additionally I think it is interesting that Romney won a majority of the independent voters in almost all of the swing states, and Obama did worse with the independent voters in all the swing states, except for North Carolina, than he did in 2008.

    The Republicans lost because they failed to inspire and turn out their base, not because of any vast demographic shifts or because Obama and his agenda are overwhelmingly popular. All during the primaries the Republican base kept sending signal after signal that they did not want Romney. Most of the base turned out ultimately, but not the maximum effort we needed to win this. The Republicans need to fight for their principles and let Obama and the Democrats take full responsibility for the shipwreck that the majority of voters asked for when they voted to give Obama four more years.

  • Nobody chews up and spits out their own like the Republicans. I was not wild about Mitt Romney when he was running in the primaries, but who was the Great Conservative? And where was he or she?

    If the Republican base was no sufficiently motivated to throw Obama out, then they deserve what they get. I know the Paulistas see no difference between Romney and Obumbler, which to me is ridiculous.

    The House GOP should not worry one bit what the press says or thinks of them. Limbaugh told them that in 1995, but they didn’t want to heed his advice.

    Try visiting another conservative message board or blog and throw out some ideas – Jindal, Kasich, etc. Invariably someone pops off trashing the suggestion.

    The late Samuel Francis labeled the Republicans the Stupid Party and he was right. They aggravate me nearly as much as the USCCB.

  • I am not convinced that the Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, or the Mainstream Media will honor any deal to give good credit to the GOP on any issue, much less immigration.

    Also, Limbaugh noted that Pres. Reagan did grant amnesty during his administration. It didn’t turn out so well for the GOP.

  • * It’s not a “free pass” if they have to pay a fine. This is ok for the majority of many of them as they already spend a lot of unnecesary money trying to stay in the country by shadowy means.

    * Democrats will do a reform one way or another and get eternal credit. Republicans can’t afford this.

    * The base that didn’t vote will never add up to make up the the necessary votes. Demographics are simply not what they used to be.

    * The (incorrect) immigrant mindset is: It is my duty to give them conservative values at home, but I can’t vote for a guy who “doesn’t care about immigrants”.


    * The way around this is to nominate a Hispanic for 2016 that can refute that directly. I think Susana Martinez is the best one that can lead a republican landslide with the Hispanic vote.

    * Many immigrants are hired by other immigrants. They produce their own economy.

    *It doesn’t seem to add up economically but The Lord miraculously provides when we follow his just teaching. One shouldnt fall into the same economical trap of those that think that abortion is the answer for poor people because they don’t realize that if they choose to please The Lord, he will provide.

    * There is no other choice but to take immigration by the horns. As I’ve said, Blessedly it is something that would please The Lord.

  • It’s not lack of charity (anyhow, they do it with money I earned and they took). It’s not racism. It’s not absence of regard for social justice. It’s not politics.

    It’s arithmetic.

    The Federal entitlement leviathan and states’ fiscal bankruptcies will collapse of their own unfunded, unpayable debt and pension obligations.

    There is nothing new under the Sun. History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes. (Twain)

    Bread and circuses: Bring on 20,000,000 more voters that believe its the government’s duty to provide for them.

    Where do we go from here?

    I’m going to the Canadian Consulate on Sixth Avenue to begin the immigration process.

  • Long term strategies: the party may well be able to swing the needle back via a heartfelt immigraton policy. But don’t expect the latino/latina voters to trust the move on paper …. GOP will need to stay the course and prove their intentions. On the flip side, I would hope that culture can better represent itself on the anti-abortion cause. All that may take till 2020.

  • I know the Paulistas see no difference between Romney and Obumbler, which to me is ridiculous.
    Penguins Fan

    And that’s why “the Paulistas” aren’t part of the Republican base.

    I am not convinced that the Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, or the Mainstream Media will honor any deal to give good credit to the GOP on any issue, much less immigration.
    DJ Hesselius

    I am also not convinced.

    Democrats will do a reform one way or another and get eternal credit. Republicans can’t afford this.

    How things work:

    Republicans of the Establishment sort attempt comprehensive immigration reforms and get shot down by middle and lower class. Establishment Media blames Republican Party.

    Democrats offer obstruction, blame, slogans and feel-good programs that cost much, encourage further illegal immigration and do little to solve the broad immigration problem (e.g. “DREAM Act”).

    What I prescribe:

    Republicans should cool their own ardor for comprehensive immigration reform while demanding that Democrats put forth a bill. Then take pot shots at it, point out that it hurts low-income people already in America – especially other Hispanics and blacks – and ask again and again why Democrats want to hurt America’s poor, jobless and unskilled laborers. If Democrats see the trap and try to avoid it by not proposing a bill, accuse them of all the bad stuff anyway.

  • I know the Paulistas see no difference between Romney and Obumbler, which to me is ridiculous.
    Penguins Fan

    And that’s why “the Paulistas” aren’t part of the Republican base.

    I am not convinced that the Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, or the Mainstream Media will honor any deal to give good credit to the GOP on any issue, much less immigration.
    DJ Hesselius

    I am also not convinced.

    Democrats will do a reform one way or another and get eternal credit. Republicans can’t afford this.

    How things work:

    Republicans of the Establishment sort attempt comprehensive immigration reforms and get shot down by middle and lower class. Establishment Media blames Republican Party.

    Democrats offer obstruction, blame, slogans and feel-good programs that cost much, encourage further illegal immigration and do little to solve the broad immigration problem (e.g. “DREAM Act”).

    What I prescribe:

    Republicans should cool their own ardor for comprehensive immigration reform while demanding that Democrats put forth a bill. Then take pot shots at it, point out that it hurts low-income people already in America – especially other Hispanics and blacks – and ask again and again why Democrats want to hurt America’s poor, jobless and unskilled laborers. If Democrats see the trap and try to avoid it by not proposing a bill, accuse them of all the bad stuff anyway.

  • Who needs all the trouble of a preview function when postview comes built-in?

  • Republicans always do badly with recent immigrants. A few generations of assimilation and they usually become middle-class and blend in. Are there any reasons to believe it won’t be the same for Hispanics? Two reasons that I can think of. First, the financial pressure to succeed is less than it was for my grandparents’ generation. That is to say, even the extremely poor in the US can find food, shelter, and clothing. Second, the idea of assimilation itself is increasingly frowned upon. There always were communities of immigrants that were insulated from the culture, but now that kind of insulation is looked upon as a virtue.

    Anyway, Republicans should be able to do fine if they avoid pandering. I’m not saying that immigration reform is necessarily pandering; I’m just saying that the past week’s panic about demographics is probably unfounded.

  • I dunno.

    Instapundit links to Kos. It seems in nine races libertarians gave the Dems the margins to win. That would be two US senators; one governor (MT), and six Congress critters, including Mia Love.

    As I often said, liberterriers are equally as bad as liberals.

    The US is fairly screwed. Thank you, libertarians.

  • Interesting point Pinky. Thanks. Guess we should say the same for the “millenials” gen as well. Reminds me of my father’ (rest in peace) comments to my then liberal uncle …. “you won’t become a conservative, until you find something worth conserving…”

  • I’d fault Catholics first, US. Yes, we did much better but speaking of Immigration, the Mexicans voted horribly again and largely are a Democrat Constituency. Some protestant announcers fault themselves as well. So who knows?? I know the Democrat Party is unpalatable to me in what they stand for. Thank goodness, there are 30 Republican Governors and Republicans control yes, the House, Senate and Governorship in 30 states.

  • Republicans control the House Senate and Governorship in 30 States my last sentence above should read.

  • 23 states, sorry, I’m suffering from a flue.

  • Hispanics will not assimilate as long as they keep their own language, this is not what Italians, etc. did. Also, a chunk of them are in California, once Republican voting and now not so. 33% of California is on welfare.

  • There is nothing wrong with Republicans and their party. The only reason Obama was elected originally and now again is because Catholics are Democrats first and Catholics second. 42% of weekly Mass attending Catholics voted for Obama this time! 42%!!! 50 percent of all Catholics voted for Obama, with 70% of Hispanic Catholics.
    The problem isn’t with the Republican Party; the problem is with the Catholic Church pure and simple. Why would 42% of weekly Mass attending Catholics (including the clergy) profess to believe God is the “giver of life,” and pray for His “will be done on earth” and “to deliver us from evil” vote for a man and a party that is diabolically opposed to what those Catholics profess to believe and pray for every Sunday? Do those Catholics think God creates life to be aborted? Is not abortion evil? Answer those questions and you will have your answer why Romney/Ryan didn’t win. Catholic Democrats are hypocrites. They think they are soooo much better than the Republicans. Can you believe that? They really do. Yet, Protestant Evangelicals gave Romney/Ryan 79 percent of their vote; up 6% from what they gave McCain. I think we will see a lot more of those Evangelicals in Heaven than we will Catholic Democrats. That means a lot of priest and bishops will have a lot of explaining to do, as well.

  • I’ve got to say and ranted about this elsewhere last week, Romney/Ryan pledged to defund Planned Parenthood which is a favorite cause of the Democrat Party. Governor Walker defunded Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin, it’s been defunded elsewhere, in Illinois it has NOT been defunded and Tonya Reaves died at a planned parenthood in the last 3 months. I think the Pro-Life movement has been close to defunding planned parenthood nationally which is pretty good considering especially with people more concerned about the economy. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider SO, I think in a very real way, those who “let Romney down” and voted for Obama, in fact play a part in the evil of abortion in our country.

Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

Archdiocese launches Campaign for Religious Liberty

Let me explain, in as clear and precise terms as I can, why social conservatives are not going anywhere, nor should they go anywhere, but should remain right at the heart of the conservative movement and gain acceptance among libertarians as well, and should reject as the foolish garbage that it is all suggestions to the contrary.

First, our principles are not electoral losers. Leftists believe they are on “the right side of history”, comparing the campaign for “marriage equality” with every civil rights struggle of past eras. They believe that this fact is reflected in the way the youth vote splits and the purported reasons why. At the same time, they gloat and brag about the size of the Democratic share of the minority vote.

The merits of the “marriage equality” campaign don’t need to be discussed here. I’ve discussed them to death on this blog in previous posts. The fact remains that minorities are opposed to “marriage equality.” If Hispanics can be won over to the GOP on the immigration issue, it will put a stop to this “wrong side of history” nonsense for a generation. The uncomfortable alliance between racial minorities who hold socially conservative views and white liberals will finally be blown apart. Unlike them, when racial minorities finally do side with the GOP en masse, we won’t attribute white liberal hatred for them to “racism” (even though it sure looks like it sometimes). This is a battle of values, not skin colors, and a failure to see that is one of the reasons why the white liberal left will never win the future they mistakenly believe to be theirs.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

  • This is a good post, Bonchamps. This is subject matter in which you are very knowledgeable and very articulate. Thank you.

  • I think this minorities are really social conservatives thing is bunk. When you have aroung 65 to 70% of black children in this country born to sinhle mothers, calling thme social conservatives is grossly ignorant at best. The situation with Hispanics is similar As Heather MacDonald points out:

    “I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

    The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

    Now, this is not to say we should jettison social issues. Not at all. Anyone who even has a cursory knowledge of how economics and culture affect one another knows that it would drive the final nail in the GOP coffin if they further capitulated on this issue. After all, the left understands the connection very well, which is why their push for a nanny state has ahd a symbiotic connection with their push for “liberalization” of socila issues.

    As and far as the Akin and Murdoch situations are concerned, the biggest problems weren’t their gaffes but the way the republican party under the leadership of Mitt Romney this election cycle, threw them under the bus.

  • They still come out to vote against gay marriage and still oppose abortion. California Hispanics voted for Prop 8. I think the Church’s influence had a lot to do with this as well.

    Perhaps these positions alone are not sufficient to consider them reliable social conservatives, but it ought to be enough to consider them potential occasional allies. The point is simply that if the outstanding immigration issues are addressed (in a way that does not compromise border security), the real bunk will be found in the line that social issues are what harm the GOP. Hispanics may not be as solid on social conservatism as whites, but white social conservatism will not be a deal breaker for them as it is with white liberals – and really, white liberals alone. Black voters are even more socially conservative than Hispanics.

  • Oh, I do not think that social conservatism hurts the GOP either. In fact, as I said, to operate under that misconcption will be the death knell of the party. It’s just that this idea of minority social conservatism as a means to pander to them vis-avis social conservatism is non sense. What these pro-illegal immigration repulicans are trying to do, in effect, is sell them a knock off item when they can get the real thing at the same or even a cheaper price.

  • I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues. I agree with Greg that this is overblown, but I do note that most elected officials who are Black or Hispanic and Republican tend to be quite solid on the social issues.

    If we can stop illegal immigration, a big if, I think the Hispanic population over time will trend Republican like most immigrant groups if they prosper. Blacks are a much greater problem for the Republicans making inroads but they are a shrinking section of the population, largely due to an atrociously high abortion rate, something that quite a few Black leaders used to be concerned with until quite recently in historical terms.

    One of the factors that may impact on Black allegiance to the Democrat party long term is the shrinking of Black urban centers in the North as Blacks move out to multi-racial suburbs and the South.

  • My point is simply that social issues aren’t a deal breaker for Hispanics. Neutralize the immigration issue and I guarantee you the Hispanic male vote and married vote will break for the GOP, and more women will come along as well. They don’t have to be hardcore social cons and we don’t have to pretend they will be.

    I’m not saying open the borders, either, by the way. But if we address the cartels as the national security menace they are, far beyond a normal criminal problem, we can come to some agreement on the situation within the US.

  • “I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues.”

    I cdertainly blacks and Hispanics in the lower income brackets who vote republican do so mainly because of social issues. Whether or not this is true of blacks and Hipsanics in the upper income brackets do so I don’t know.

    Whether or not we can stop illegal immigration outright is, as Donald says, a big if. But we can secure the border to where we get it under control. Problem is, the federal government, regardless of party, lack the will to do so. To get a good insight into how bad the problem is, particularly in Arizona, I would urge readers to read Jan Brewer’s book, Scorpians for Breakfast. Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.

  • Surely, a fundamental conservative ideal is free and consensual relations between individuals and groups, as expressed in the great Physiocrat principle, “trade knows no frontiers.”

    In other words, the free movement of labour and capital are the conservative default positions. Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

  • In the words of the populist comic strip Pogo, “We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.”

    “the problem is not with our values, but with their articulation.” That, right there, is the heart of the matter. Why was Reagan popular? He wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing!

    [Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]

    It has to start in the primaries, where people will run who don’t give a rat’s patoot whether they win the nomination as long as they get the ideas out there, articulate, principled and clear.

    We must abandon the left’s “groupthink” politics (even as they are being used here) and formulate ideas and propositions, based on principle and character, that can be articulated in such a way as to appeal to individual people as individuals. The Left herds us into groups and then creates issues that put us into contention with each other: Classic “divide and conquer.” That tactic itself needs to be exposed and blared from the rooftops and when opposed, blared even louder. The evidence is damning and the counterpoint automatic.

    Just as a shift from peacetime to war can mean a wholesale change in leadership (remember Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short,) the key now is to identify and “hand out gold watches” to GOP establishment members who can’t get by their shopworn stereotypes and “Ken” doll notions. We did not ask for this war but it is here, “and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    All that need be done is what Bonchamps spells out in the last section. We need warriors who are fully aware of the enemy’s tactics and capabilities. The sine qua non of political candidacy should be an at-minimum-conversational familiarity with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Clausewitz as well as Scripture. Drop the silver-spoon whitebreads and get some honest to gosh scrappers in there. Stick to policy but pull no punches. Stir up passions! Speak to the people as people and not demographics.

    Like all bullies, the Left is confident only when it thinks its target is cowed and suppliant. It is time to dispel this illusion.

  • Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

    A country is not a hotel. The social and political disruption which would attend open borders would be a nightmare. There are two sorts of countries which can tolerate free immigration:

    1. Societies of migrants with a great deal of unsettled lands (with the proviso that it helps if the migration streams are not from irreconcilable groups).

    2. Countries which are unattractive in which to settle.

  • Art Deco

    In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

  • In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

    The fundamental neoclassical theory predicts gains from trade in factors of production. Econometric analysis of the dimension of those gains reveals (with regard to trade in labor) the following:

    1. The gains are small
    2. They accrue predominantly to the immigrant populations themselves (the residual to the extant population amounting to around 0.1% of gross domestic product).
    3. The benefit to the extant population is crucially dependent on welfare policy.

    The main brain for this sort of empirical study in this country is George Borjas, who is not an advocate of unrestricted immigration.

    Also, the social and political challenges which derive from ‘diversity’ are not captured in economic statistics.

  • In discussing minorities and values voters, keep in mind that 73% of Catholic Latinos and 95% of black Protestants voted for Obama. They did this knowing, well some of them knew, Obama’s support of infanticide, abortion, gay marriage, anti-religious freedom and secular humanism. These groups may be values voters, but self-interests trump all other interests.

  • Kyle has a point, but it isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports the murder of your unborn children. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports curtailing your most cherished freedoms into the closet while parading filth out in public for your children to emulate. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate whose economic policies keep your people shackled to the public treasury instead of being able to stand up independently without government telling you what to do. Truthfully, I do not think that these people really know what their self-interests are. 🙁 I don’t mean to detract from Kyle’s point – they vote for what they think is in their self-interests, but not for what is really in their self-interests. And then we conservatives are called closed-minded, hateful, intolerant racists because we think its immoral to murder a black or Hispanic baby – or any baby for that matter.

  • “[Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]”

    I’m not sure of what you mean by this question. But the fact of the matter is that Hispanics and blacks are not nearly as socially conservative as those who tell us we need to pander to them are. When you have up to 70% out of wedlock birthrate among blacks and 53% out of wedlock births among Hispanics, you cannot honestly claim that they are predominately socially conservative. Just because you attend Church doesn’t mean you are socially conservative. There are many regualarly mass attending Catholics are not social conservatives.

  • There’s a difference between being a social conservative and being a moral person. I wouldn’t use rates of sin to decide who is and isn’t a social con. If you read Charles Murray’s analysis of white America in “Coming Apart”, he reveals one of the paradoxes of our time: that the poor tend to claim social conservative values while not practicing them in real life, while the wealthy reject social conservative values while actually practicing them in life. He calls upon the new elite to preach what they practice for the benefit of society.

  • By “not practicing,” I would include voting as a practice that has not shown to follow social conservatism some are perceived to espouse. Voting and lifestyles are becoming bedmates. Voting is less driven by what we should do and more driven by what I want. It wasn’t always this way, but more of America is willing to go off the moral cliff. If America showed as much concern for the moral cliff as it does for a hyped up fiscal cliff, there would be no fiscal cliff. But worrying about social values is such a “what’s good for society, the country as a whole” issue. That can’t stand up to the self-interest draw of a fiscal cliff hot topic. That will affect my pocket book!

  • I’m sorry, Bonchamps, but this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. If yu want to support this or that immigration policie, do it on the basis of its merits, not as a means to pander to a particular racial or ethnic group. To do so would kill the GOP.

  • “this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. ”

    What are you talking about? This is my post. I made it the issue.

  • Blacks and Hispanics are much like the “Catholic” vote: an illusion.

    Some people are going to be socially biased against the GOP because they’ve been lied to, and some people just want handouts. It would be much more useful to start sorting people as “cultural democrats” vs “active democrats” and go after votes that way.

    We will not win over people who care more about sex and free money than principles; we already have the people who care more about not killing babies than free money and sex. We need to reach the people who voted for Obama because “that is what decent people do.”

  • Greg: “Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.”

    100% with you there, bro. Dolan is, and has been, incompetent.

    Women on both sides detest him now. The left-leaning women despise him simply because he is a male, and see him as a male that wants to take away their freedom to choose. Faithful women on the right detest him because he has effectively (through is ineffectiveness) stripped us of our freedoms, soon right down to the freedom of a healthcare worker to not perform or assist in abortions and dispensing abortifacients.

    So yes, despise (God forgive me, but this man is not a good shepherd) is the proper word here. And I suspect Our Lady is not real happy with him either, and if Momma ain’t happy…

  • I am very disappointed in Cardinal Dolan and the majority of the USCCB. I had hoped. That his invitation of Obama to the Al Smith dinner was a backfire on Obama, but after seeing photos of him and Obama laughing it up, I was revolted.

  • Tonight’s reading assignment: Mt 9:10-13 or Mk 2:15-17

Explaining Reason: Atheism or Christianity?

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now our beloved Pope Benedict XVI, devoted much writing and attention to questions such as this, not in isolation, but as they relate to academics and civil societies. In an essay, “Theology and Church Politics” published in a 1987 book Church Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, he explains what theology is, what the relation of theology is to the Church, and what the relation of the Church is to education and politics. He explains why such culturally shocking assertions, such as the subordination of the University and the State to the Church, are naturally and rationally ordered relationships for the common good, and it all begins with an explanation about reason.

The University and the State should be subordinate to the Church? Atheism would not agree with this, of course, and it sounds like an outlandish claim in the world today. If you have ever wondered how to respond to the insistence that faith should play no part in academic instruction or public policy, you will find Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation illuminating. This will take a few essays to cover, so this is the first in the series and it deals with the fundamental claim to reason itself.

Can Atheism Explain Reason?

The word “reason” is repeated a lot today, but without an understanding of what it really is. Atheists lay claim to it, assuming that it is the opposite of faith. The word has its root in classical Latin, ratio, and it means intellectual power, the capacity for rational thought.

A tenet of atheism is that reason is a product of human evolution, just another step along the pathway that began with the Big Bang, a “random byproduct of the ocean of irrationality from which everything actually sprang.” But how can this be? If reason is real, then it is as inconceivable that the Big Bang is the primordial beginning of the universe as it is inconceivable that a circle can be squared. That is — it is impossible. The foundation of rationality cannot be irrationality; reason cannot spring from the unreasonable. No, atheism has no explanation for the existence of reason.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Explaining Reason: Atheism or Christianity?

When a Letter of Congratulations Contains a Warning. . .

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

The Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations for the Russian Orthodox Church, and a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, has written a letter of congratulations to Right Reverend Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham and nominee as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Metropolitan of Volokolamsk

Consider its contents:

Dear Brother and Lord Bishop,


I would like to extend to you wholehearted congratulations on your election as Head of one of the oldest episcopal chairs founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury in the 7th century.


You have been entrusted with the spiritual guidance of the entire Anglican Communion, a unique union of like-minded people, which, however diverse the forms of its existence in the world may be, needs one ‘steward of God’ (Tit. 1:7) the guardian of the faith and witness to the Truth (cf. Jn. 18:37).


The Russian Orthodox Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion are bonded by age-old friendly relations initiated in the 15th century. For centuries, our Churches would preserve good and truly brotherly relations encouraged both by frequent mutual visits and established theological dialogue and certainly by a spirit of respect and love which used to accompany the meetings of our hierarchs, clergy and ordinary believers.


Regrettably, the late 20th century and the beginning of the third millennium have brought tangible difficulties in relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The introduction female priesthood and now episcopate, the blessing of same-sex ‘unions’ and ‘marriages’, the ordination of homosexuals as pastors and bishops – all these innovations are seen by the Orthodox as deviations from the tradition of the Early Church, which increasingly estrange Anglicanism from the Orthodox Church and contribute to a further division of Christendom as a whole.


We hope that the voice of the Orthodox Church will be heard by the Church of England and Churches of the Anglican Communion, and good fraternal relationships between us will revive.


I wish you God’s help in your important work.


“May the God of love and peace be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).


+Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk

“Congratulations” might not be the best word to describe the entire contents of Bishop Hilarion’s letter.

“Innovations,” “deviations,” “increasingly estrange,” “further contribute to a further division of Christendom,” and “good fraternal relationships between us will revive” sound more like a “warning” to the new Archbishop of Canterbury: His denomination is falling off a moral cliff.

Bishop Hilarion doesn’t mince his words when it comes to the orthodox Christian faith, does he?

Imagine what the National Catholic Reporter would have to say if the USCCB or a U.S. metropolitan archbishop sent  the new Archbishop of Canterbury a similar letter of congratulations!

Continue reading...

30 Responses to When a Letter of Congratulations Contains a Warning. . .

  • Nice letter but technicall speaking, the Archbiship of Cantebury is not the “Head of one of the oldest episcopal chairs founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury in the 7th century”. That see ended in 1558.

  • Both Canterbury in England and the ECUSA under Bishopress Schori are in the full flight of heresy and apostasy.

  • The last Archbishop of Canterbury was Reginald, Cardinal Pole. His predecessor, Thomas Cranmer, was deprived for heresy. All successive so-called archbishops are not in Apostolic succession.

  • Just what are the views of the Orthodox on the validity of Anglican orders?
    Are they similar to those of the Catholic Church (i.e., that they are invalid)?
    If not, in light of this ‘congratulations’, is it possible that in the future our
    Orthodox brothers will also deem Anglican orders invalid?

  • The Eastern Orthodox Churches generally accept the validity of Anglican Orders, but Canterbury’s and ECUSA’s apostasy has put a kink in the works. Eastern Orthodox do accept validity of Anglican Continuum Jurisdictions on a case by case basis. The Anglican Church responded to Pope Leo XIII’s Bull in the late 1800s on the invalidity of Anglican Orders with Saepius Officio. In today’s environment with many Anglican bishops in the Continuum being consecrated by Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Jurisdictions – which Rome recognizes as valid – makes Pope Leo XIII’s Bull out dated. There are also other arguments for the validity of Anglican Orders. Read Saepius Officio. I can’t link to it and other stuff on this matter now because I have to get back to neutron ‘R us. But too many in the Roman Jursidiction have this inflated sense of Roman supremacy that’s simply wrong. Many if not most Anglicans in the Continuum would recognize the Pope as Primus iter Pares, just like the Orthodox. Gotta go for now. Fully expect to be blasted for what I wrote.

  • Once again, Russia defends traditional values. ????? ? ??????.

  • Bishop Hilarion knows that there are souls at stake and through his tactful refutation of Anglican innovations he may pick up a few converts. The truly prayerful Anglicans will not be able to remain Anglican and the institution will fail unless it seeks reunification. I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

  • I quote, “Remember, Father David, that the Orthodox are Easterners and not Westeners, and “yes” does not mean “yes” and “no” does not mean “no”, said Archimandrite Barnabas, Yes, there are statements that indicate that the Orthodox Church does recognize Anglican Orders; but much more important is the fact that no Anglican priest who has become Orthodox has been allowed to officiate without being re-ordained.” Fr Barnabas lived and worked for years in France because they did not with to draw attention to the fact that, although a canon in the Church in Wales, he had been re-ordained.
    Actually, the issue is more complicated because, ingeneral, the Orthodox do not think in terms of validity. For us it is all a little confusing.

  • Here is Saepius Officio, Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of His Holiness Leo XIII.

    Here is Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders by the Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. The Christian East, March, 1927

    Here is an interesting article at Philorthodox about the Validity of Anglican Orders:

    Here is an excellent paper on the Validity of Anglican Holy Orders by Father Mark of the Anglican Church of the Trinity in Hiram, Georgia:

    I acknowledge that Canterbury and the Episcopal Church USA are in full flight from orthodoxy. They have polluted themselves with embracing homosexual sodomy and female clergy. They no longer have valid orders. But those in the orthodox Anglican jurisdictions that broke away from this madness are a different matter.

  • I think it’s a masterful letter, expressing concerns in a tactful but forthright manner. It will probably have little effect on the actions of the new Anglican archbishop but I respect the metropolitan for his attempt to speak the truth in love. I’m Catholic and thus have theological differences with the Orthodox churches but no animus. I wish we could all be one.

  • Pingback: Metropolitan Hilarion Warns Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury | Big Pulpit
  • I have never, ever heard of an Episcopal deacon or priest “received” as clergy into any legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in North America – conditionally or unconditionally. All are ordained as if they were laymen. That’s what happens “on the ground”, position papers and ecumenical diplomacy not withstanding.

    However, Pope Benedict XVI has shown great warmth and interest in the formation and rapid growth of the ACNA, (Anglican Church in North America). The ACNA has also begun friendly dialogues with the conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans and the conservative Polish National Catholic Church as well.

  • Remember, the Eastern and Anglican churches have a lot at stake in preserving the idea of an Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox communion. It’s not just about inter-church relations; it’s about their self-identity. It’s got to kill the Orthodox to see the Anglicans become just another Protestant denomination.

  • “Imagine what the National Catholic Reporter would have to say if the USCCB or a U.S. metropolitan archbishop sent the new Archbishop of Canterbury a similar letter of congratulations!”

    Or the Pope.

  • Dan raises an interesting point, one answered by Spero News editor Martin Barillas at:

    Barillas writes:

    Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Catholic Church’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sent a message on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI to the new Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Anglican Communion, the Right Reverend Justin Welby. Cardinal Koch expressed “congratulations and warmest best wishes.”

    Cardinal Koch, a Swiss native, wrote “Relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion are a hugely important part of the ecumenical call for all Christians to seek greater fidelity to the Lord’s will, so clearly expressed in his prayer to the Father at the Last Supper ‘that all may be one’. For almost fifty years, as you are well aware, there has been a formal theological dialogue which continues to seek a deeper understanding of the great heritage shared by Anglicans and Catholics, as well as the points of divergence which still impede fully restored ecclesial communion. During that same time, relations between succeeding Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury have been marked by numerous meetings which have expressed intense spiritual and human friendship, and a shared concern for our Gospel witness and service to the human family.”

    Cardinal Koch has expressed in the past his commitment to good relations with Christian communions other than his own. In 2010, the cardinal spoke of the Pope’s “irreversible” commitment to ecumenism while averring that neither he, nor the pontiff, wish to return to a time before the Second Vatican Council.

    Writing to the incoming leader of the Anglican Communion, Cardinal Koch said “I am certain that under your leadership those excellent relations will continue to bear fruit, and I look forward to meeting you personally, and to future opportunities to share our common commitment to the cause of Christian Unity, ‘so that the world may believe’.

    “Please accept the assurance of my earnest prayers for you and your family as you prepare for a new phase in your dedicated service of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”.

    Quite different from the letter of His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion.

  • As an Orthodox Christian living in England, I must say that I much prefer the approach taken by Cardinal Koch which makes the points which have to be made very subtly, and without any possible personal offence to the Archbishop-designate.

  • Here in the United Stated the Epsicopailian Church is have major fractures within itself. We are seeing an extremely large number from that belief move to Catholism. I was reading of one entire parish, building and all, become Catholic. In talking to Episcopalian’s about this they are saying many with in their religion don’t like the exact things the Russain Orthodox Bishop mentioned.

  • Paul W. Primavera; Is it true that any and all men who are validly ordained and may have repudiated St. Peter and the Apostolic Succession as Vicar of Christ on earth may have stepped off into heresy?

  • Mary D V,

    The Orthodox Anglicans whom I know do not repudiate either the Pope or Apostolic Succession. Rather, they maintain that there were 12 Apostles, not 1, and that the Historic Creeds of Christendom say “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, not “One Holy Catholic and Petrine Church.” Further, most agree that the Bishop of Rome is Primus iter Pares, but historically not Primus in Auctoritate.

  • To continue in my response to Mary D V:

    As I indicated above, the question that we must ask ourselves is this: did Jesus Christ establish One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds state, or did Jesus Christ establish the One Holy Catholic and Petrine Church? The discussion below shows what Sacred Scripture says.

    In Matthew 16:18-19, when Jesus provides the Key to the Kingdom and states that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven, and loosened on Earth loosened in Heaven, He uses the second person singular in speaking to St. Peter. The Greek word “?????” means “you singular bind” and the Greek word “?????” means “you singular loosen.” This is repeated in the Latin Vulgate with the word “ligaveris” which means the same as “?????” and the word “solveris” which means the same as “?????.”

    However, in John 20:21-23 a change is made to plural when Jesus after His resurrection meets the Disciples in the Upper Room, breathes on them the Holy Spirit and declares that whose sins they forgive are forgiven and whose sins they retain are retained. The Greek phrase “????? ????” in verse 21 means “I send you plural”. The Greek phrase “?????? ?????? ?????” in verse 22 means “Receive you plural the Spirit Holy.” In verse 23, the Greek word “????????” means “you plural shall forgive” and the Greek word “???????” means “you plural shall retain.” This is repeated in the Latin Vulgate. In verse 21, the phrase “ego mitto vos” is used to denote “I send you plural”. In verse 22 the phrase “accipite Spiritum Sanctum” means “receive you plural the Spirit Holy”. Finally, in verse 23, the word “remiseritis” means “you plural shall forgive” and the word “retinueritis” means “you plural shall retain.”

    Furthermore, In John chapter 21, where Jesus thrice asks St. Peter to feed His sheep, the Orthodox Anglicans would maintain that He gives to St. Peter a special responsibility, not a special authority since there are 12 equal Apostles (well, 11 until the lot casting of Matthias in Acts chapter 1, and that was NOT an exclusive Petrine appointment).

    The relevant Biblical texts of Matthew 16 and John 20 are reproduced below in Greek, Latin and English for the interested reader. I checked the conjugations of the Greek verbs at this web site: While my Latin is passable, my ability at Greek is horrible, and my pharmacist – a very pretty young Greek lady – says that I pronounce the “????? ????” (The Lord’s Prayer) with a horrible Yankee accent and should stick to broken English, which I am really an expert at. 😉

    Matthew 16:18-19

    ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????????, ??? ????? ???? ?? ????????????? ?????.
    ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????, ??? ? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ????????, ??? ? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ????????.

    Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.
    Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis

    And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

    John 20:21-23

    ????? ??? ?????? [? ??????] ?????, ?????? ????· ????? ?????????? ?? ? ?????, ???? ????? ????.
    ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????, ?????? ?????? ?????·
    ?? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ???????????.

    Dixit ergo eis iterum pax vobis sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos.
    Hoc cum dixisset insuflavit et dicit eis accipite Spiritum Sanctum.
    Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis detenta sunt.

    He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
    When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
    Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

  • Bishop Hilarion is to be congratulated for his stand against the aberrations being now contemplated even in pagan America. I have a problem with keeping those not in the fulness of faith in their quandary without the body and blood of Jesus whch must surely be a serious handicap for salvation. The decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council along with eschewing doctrine and discipline were responsible for almost destroying evangelization in the disastrous wake of the corrosive “Spirit of Vatican II.” Catholics not taught the faith became easy targets for Protestant proselytism. My drive as a convert of 63 years has never deviated from trying to make everyone become a Catholic. Without the Real Presence there is no life in us..

  • Both Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Both believe in the Catholic Church, Katholicos meaning universal or whole. Both believe that Rome is not the be all and end all of the Catholic Church. Both recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Both have valid Holy Orders. Both have valid Sacraments, a fact that Rome itself recognizes in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy. Both refuse to use the word Transubstantiation, both preferring to regard what happens at Consecration of the Species as a Mystery not understandable by mere mortal man. Both maintain what Sacred Scripture states: unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. The problem always devolves to this: is the Church Petrine or Apostolic? Metropolitan Hilarion would say One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and he warns the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury from departing from that Church through ordination of women and homosexuals. BTW, the Roman jurisdiction has more than its fair share of homosexual priests and a woman’s ordination movement, both thankfully opposed by Rome itself.

  • “Quite different from the letter of His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion.”

    That isn’t fair. Both the ordination of women and the homosexually partnered bishop received very frank responses.

    Wikipedia [standard disclaimers apply] has this to say: “However, in conversation with the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar, Cardinal Walter Kasper…. warned that if the Church of England was to ordain women as bishops, as the Episcopal Church has done, then it could destroy any chance of reuniting the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. Although ARCIC had just completed the major document on Marian theology in 2003, Pope John Paul II officially called off all future talks between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion upon the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop.”

  • Mr. Primavera:

    Glory to Jesus Christ. As an Eastern Catholic, which straddles the east and west, I understand your point of view. The papacy has been an evolving institution we all agree over the past 2,000 years. I believe that even the two most recent popes agree that unity or ecclesiastical communion will require a revised view of the role of the papacy with regard to the Orthodox churches. If it is God’s will, it will happen since unity is more important now than in any Christian era. Anglicanism by its own hand has committed suicide by its actions over the past few decades. My understanding of Anglicanism may be limited but being ‘ordained’ is not the end all or be all…..for example some Catholic women are being ordained by schismatic bishops. Many if not most ordained Anglican clergy have a low church at best or an extremely liberal or Protestant view (which is at variance with orthodox faiths) of the Eucharist as a symbol rather than a reality. The Eucharist in the center of unity. The fact that Anglicans who hold the orthodox view – high church Anglicans – are marginalized and ignored by the mainstream and Anglican hierarchy. Any devout Anglican at this point in time should join an orthodox communion not only for their souls sake but also their sanity.

  • I basically agree with you, Patrick, and now there are many breakaway Anglican Jurisdictions. I went to Wikipedia to list them below. The one with which I am familiar is the Orthodox Anglican Church which follows the 1928 BCP and has a very High Church view of the Sacraments, including Holy Orders and the Eucharist. Its Archbishop / Primate and its Suffragan Bishop can trace their Episcopal Orders via:

    (1) The Rebiban Succession (common to the Roman Jurisdiction) through the Utrecht Union which became the Old Catholic Church in Europe, and
    (2) The Eastern Orthodox Succession through the Moscow Patriachate of the Russian Orthodox Church

    Here is the “current” List of Continuing Anglican Churches (estimated number of Parishes are in parentheses) – to those Romans who rightly point out how fractured this shows Anglicanism to be, they would do well to consider how equally fractured the Roman jurisdiction is between liberal social justice Roman Catholics and conservative pro-life Roman Catholics, with all the variations in between:

    American Anglican Church (12)
    Anglican Catholic Church (135)
    Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (12)
    Anglican Churches of America (2)
    Anglican Church in America (75)
    Anglican Church of Virginia (8)
    Anglican Episcopal Church (6)
    Anglican Orthodox Church (10)
    Anglican Province of America (60)
    Anglican Province of Christ the King (42)
    Christian Episcopal Church of Canada (3)
    Diocese of the Great Lakes (5)
    Diocese of the Holy Cross (20)
    Episcopal Missionary Church (30)
    Holy Catholic Church–Western Rite (30)
    Orthodox Anglican Church (5)
    Southern Episcopal Church (3)
    United Anglican Church (6)
    United Episcopal Church of North America (16)

  • Mr. Primavera, Paul, Only the Catholic Church gives us the Sacrament of Penance to feed HIS sheep.

  • You are correct, Mary D V. Indeed, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does provide the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance. Note the title of the Church. it does not say “One Holy Roman and Petrine Church.” And even Rome recognizes that in spite of human disunity, the Eastern Orthodox who recite the same Nicene and Apostles’ Creed as we do ( except for the Filioque – different topic) are a part of that Catholic Church. It is Catholic which means whole, NOT just Roman, but it does include Roman and most are willing to acknowledge the Pope as Primus iter Pares.

  • Those who are not against you, are for you, in respect to the letter of warning.

  • Without mincing words, I say straight on that the head of the Anglican Communion is remotely controlled by the Government of Britain! And, as we all know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Britain is one the countries that supports same-sex marriage and all the shenanigans associated with gays and lesbians. From this background, one could see the reason any Archbishop of Canterbury would always support the enthronement of gays and lesbians in both the Anglican Church hierarchy and congregation! Anything short of this from such Archbishop could result in his removal. It is unfortunate that the separation of the Church and The State is not present in the United Kingdom! More unfortunate is the fact that some unpleasant policies adopted by the Archbishop of Canterbury would impact and could offend the beliefs of many Anglican faithful situated outside Britain. And this gay and lesbian issue is definitely a sore point in this direction. I look forward to the day a future Archbishop of Canterbury would dare the government of Britain by throwing out the Church’s adoption of the gay and lesbian matters. It would be a beginning of moral and legal reforms in the UK.

  • Is not the monarch by definition head of the Church of England? Isn’t it a state church and the archbishop is chief prelate but not the head of the church? He can’t make doctrinal decisions without the confirmation of the monarch who’s now ruler of England in name only. In such a situation (if I correctly understand it) how can the church remain faithful to Christ? No one can serve two masters.

Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

5 Responses to Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

  • Sex, lies and Benghazi . . .

    Maybe the Officers Clubs restaurants need to mix saltpeter in the mashed potatoes.

    “I will not lie, cheat, or steal.”

    Anybody remember “Kent State”?

    Tin soldiers and Barry’s coming.

    We’re finally on our own.

    This Winter I hear the drumming.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

  • The motto of West Point is Duty, Honor, Country. While betraying his marriage vows, Petraeus managed to betray all three in his desperation to keep his career. Completely contemptible

    Can we please reserve judgment until this is all sorted out. Why he did what he did is murky.

  • Wherein, it seems that four dead Americans in Benghazi are likely far worse than the idiotic (insults to a moronic nation’s intelligence) attempts at cover-up.

    Four more years of: “It wasn’t me!”


  • the POTUS and DEMOS. favor Adam and Steve, and Eve and Eddie, so with their loguc why not Petraus and two women and another man. POTUS is the worse betrayer here, he knew darned well but it only came out after the election. DE about the scandal of BENGAZI and Gen PETRAEUS.
    Denier in Chief and his OBAMEDIA puppies.

  • The “honeypot” trap is a mainstay of spy thrillers and of intelligence services going back to Queen Esther. How does a sitting CIA director allow himself to be compromised in this manner?

Have I Got a Party For Them!

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012



After every major Republican defeat the party plays a game of lifeboat which boils down to:  “If we just dump over those rascals I have never agreed with, everything would be hunky dory.”  After a few months of this, the party settles down, learns from its defeats, the Democrats fall on their face, and the party comes roaring back.  In the present period of Republican angst, some commentators have been calling for the social conservatives to go into the deep blue political void.  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal is typical.

Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it’s lawful and consensual and doesn’t impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.

Also, if gay people wish to lead conventionally bourgeois lives by getting married, that may be lunacy on their part but it’s a credit to our values. Channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. The alternative is the tapped foot and the wide stance.

Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s call for a “truce” on social issues.

I always find the sheer political fantasy land of such proposals amusing.  Social conservatives are  the core of the Republican party.  No one can be involved with the Republican party for long without noticing that most of the volunteers in Republican campaigns are social conservatives.  They are the ones who do the door to door canvassing, put up yard signs, man the phones, etc.  Without them any Republican campaign would be a mere shell.  Yes, it would be a masterstroke for Republicans to alienate their most devoted supporters.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Have I Got a Party For Them!

  • I agree with Don and would note that the Libertarian platform is perfectly fine with polygamy, as will be the Democratic platform eventually.

  • the party plays a game of lifeboat which boils down to: “If we just dump over those rascals I have never agreed with, everything would be hunky dory.

    Not ‘the party’, but a collection of professional word merchants like David Frum.

  • Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”.

    That was Bill Clinton’s era. I haven’t heard the current president say “rare” once. The kind of pro-abortion extremism that the Journal correctly derides is sitting in the White House. It’s perfectly legitimate, even by the WSJ article’s standards, to raise the abortion issue in the face of extremism. I agree with Don about the rest, too, but I just had to call out that “safe, legal, and rare” falsehood.

  • Listening to the radio right now I hear Penn Jillette, the comedian/comic, claiming to be a libertarian. He says that he is “as far right as you can go on economics and as far left as you can go on sex.” First of all, note the obsessive linking of all social issues with “sex.” More importantly, it continues to astound me that so-called small government types miss the connection between culture and economics. The massive interventionist state has been created by (and also exacerbates) the breakdown of the family and reliance on the government as a last refuge of charity. Libertarians simply cannot grasp this concept, thus highlighting the problem of viewing liberty as an end rather the means to an end.

  • The massive interventionist state has been created by (and also exacerbates) the breakdown of the family and reliance on the government as a last refuge of charity. Libertarians simply cannot grasp this concept, thus highlighting the problem of viewing liberty as an end rather the means to an end.

    In this country, the elaboration on conventional common provision which began around about 1933 antedated the breakdown in social architecture by more than three decades. The initial experiments toward this end in Hohenzollern Germany were underway five decades earlier.

    Libertarians are commonly discussing a hypothetical society, not the actual world of 1928, and are often in a state in life where the observation that all of us come into this world in a dependent position and most of us leave in the same circumstance is not exactly palpable. Rich Leonardi once said that his departure from the libertarian fold began when he realized that the luminaries thereof were disproportionately drawn from the childless.

    One should draw a distinction between a state which allocates capital beyond the conventional boundaries of common property and public works (through mercantilist measures and economic planning) and a state which re-distributes income. The former is attempting to influence economic decision making at every stage; the latter is not. Friedrich v. Hayek’s brief concerned planning; social insurance was not of much concern to him.

  • The left understands the importance of the social issues, which is why their push for abortion, same sex “marriage”, etc. has always been symbiotic with their push for the welfare nanny state. Obamacare proves that fact in spades.

    For Mitch Daniels of all people to call for a truce on social issues is bizarre in thta he distances himself from his own record as Governor of Indiana in doing so. His record on social issues there was sterling.

  • What’s ironic is that what likely depressed turnout for Romney in places like Ohio is the exact OPPOSITE of what the low-tax liberals at the WSJ would ever admit — namely, this caricature of him as Gordon Gekko.

    while the economic liberal/socially conservative dichotomy when it comes to working-class voters is probably an oversimplification, I seriously doubt all of Obama’s support in the Midwest came from people who are gungho about his cultural liberalism.

  • Mike Petrik wrote, “I agree with Don and would note that the Libertarian platform is perfectly fine with polygamy, as will be the Democratic platform eventually.”

    When will both parties then support leagilized pedophilia and beastiality? After all, if sex between two men or between two women is OK, then why not sex between man and boy, or sex between man and animal? Let me guess: the only behavior the left is outrages at is when a priest is accused, falsely or otherwise, of any sex act. But if a liberal does the exact same act, then it’s OK. In fact, it’s to be praised. Romans 1:32 says that such people deserve to die. Not my words – St. Paul’s and hee was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just to be clear, however: anyone who sins deserves to die. We have all sinned. That’s why Christ died on a Cross.

  • Most of the sane libertarians I know are aware that the Libertarian party can’t go anywhere; that’s why they want to take over the Republican party.

    This phenomia is familiar to anyone who has lived near a left wing disaster area, and had floods of people moving out of that area…and making their new home make the same stupid mistakes.

  • The Republicans allowed themselves to be painted as a party of plutocrats, even though their tradition included famous Republicans such as the trust-busting TR who had warned about the concentration of capital in a few hands. They could have handily won the battleground states with swing votes from the Reagan Democrats alone without compromising on any of their core issues. They could not bring out the Evangelicals either which despite Rev Billy Graham’s last minute trick on the Mormon issue, left many unconvinced. Obama was in tears when congratulating his campaign workers, quite realising that they had pulled off an unexpected victory on the back of an ill thought Republican campaign.

Terri Schiavo Could Not Be Reached For Comment

Tuesday, November 13, AD 2012

Here is some new research for a court to consider prior to sentencing another person in a vegetative state to death by dehydration , as was done to Terri Schiavo:



A Canadian man presumed to be in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade is “talking” to researchers and answering their questions.

Severely brain injured in a traffic crash 12 years ago, Scott Routley’s  condition had been officially classified “vegetative state,” unable to  communicate with the outside world.

His family has always believed differently.

Now, high-tech brain imaging appears to have proven them right.

With the help of functional MRI, Routley has been able to answer “No” to the  question, “Are you in pain?”

The finding, first reported Tuesday by the BBC, could have  profound implications for helping those locked in a vegetative state.

“Brain imaging techniques are helping us to  understand more about what some of these patients can and can’t do, particularly  things they can do that might not be apparent from standard clinical  examination,” said Adrian Owen of the University of Western Ontario’s Centre for  Brain and Mind. The British neuroscientist moved to Canada last year from the University of Cambridge.

“His official clinical condition has been that he was in a vegetative state.  But his family have always maintained that there is more going on with Scott — that he is aware of many things going on around him, and even that he was able  to communicate,” Owen said in an interview with Postmedia News.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Terri Schiavo Could Not Be Reached For Comment

  • John 11:35 is most appropriate – Jesus wept after meeting Mary and Martha, and telling them that He is the resurrecion and the life, and just before He arrived at Lazarus’s tomb. But we with our modern technology would have executed Lazarus by harvesting his internal organs for transplants. Jesus still weeps.

  • I saw Salvage’s comment before deletion. He is a rabid atheist who goes from Catholic blog to Catholic blog to disseminate hate and discontent. Sad.

  • Very sad Paul. What a poor, bitter, futile way to lead a life.

  • I remember the prayers for Terry and not to much later JP II. One day we will all be together at the colossal family reunion.
    God bless us everyone.

  • The fact that Governor Jeb Bush did not intervene in saving her life told me everything I needed to know about this so-called catholic. And now the RINO’s will attempt to foist him upon us in 2016? Count me out.

  • Pingback: Why Fish on Friday Unknown Famous Converts Canon Law Patheos | Big Pulpit
  • I remember the Terri Schiavo case well. The priest who was raising donations for her cause was doing a great job. I can’t quite recall his name, but at the time I was doing okay, so I sent $100. to assist in the legal case. A trajedy that she was denied her life. That Michael Schiavo has a lot to answer for before his Judge.

  • Terry Schiavo became a ward of the court when she was rejected by Michael Schiavo, just like every, unborn, unwanted person. As a ward of the court, Terry Schiavo ought to have been given back to her parents, who begged for her. The judge played political opinion instead of JUSTICE and ought to be unbenched, recalled or whatever, for not knowing and dispensing JUSTICE, his job, and for doing his own evil will. As a living person, Terry Schiavo ought to have been free to accept gifts of water, food, compassion and friendship. Terry Schiavo was denied the most menial of human expression. Terry Schiavo became the property of the state, instead of a ward of the court, and has been denied the most humble expressions of humanity, the virtue of charity, over which the state has no business, control or authentic authority. Terry Schiavo was denied her human soul by a soulless government, an atheocracy of Godless men and empty shirts. Please remove these political sycophants from the court of Justice. One Hail Mary in Latin

Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

Tuesday, November 13, AD 2012


As scandals go, the Benghazi-Petraeus-Broadwell-Kelley matter is scaling the heights of the truly bizarre.  Here are the latest developments worthy of the pen of Flaubert.

1.  Jill and the G-Man-Allegedly the FBI agent in charge of the initial investigation of the anonymous e-mails purportedly sent by Paula Broadwell to Jill Kelley warning her to stay away from Petraeus, became infatuated with Kelley and sent her a photo of himself shirtless.  He was removed from the case supposedly when his higher-ups determined that his objectivity had been compromised.  (Do you think?)  He supposedly was the FBI whistleblower who contacted Republican Congressman David Reichert and Eric Cantor with  allegations that the government was dragging its feet on the case out of political considerations so that it would not surface before the election.

2. Jill and the Lawyers-Kelley has supposedly engaged the services of a high-priced lawyer and a PR flack.

The PR flack formerly represented Monica Lewinsky.  Now why should she need them?  Read on.

3.  Jill and the Marine-Marine Corp four star General John Allen is apparently under investigation for 20 to 30 thousand pages of e-mails and correspondence between him and Jill Kelley, the “unpaid social liaison” at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.  Allen is currently the commander of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, effectively the commander in chief of American and Nato forces in that country.  Both Allen and Petraeus served at the base, home of Central Command for the Middle East, prior to Petraeus being put in command in Afghanistan in 2010.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

  • In the meantime, is anyone in the news media talking about how our consulate people got murdered? Or is the story to be covered just sex and more sex? Sorry- rhetorical questions only.

  • The media has to cover Benghazi now Paul because a juicy sex scandal is something even they can’t ignore. Petraeus is now a destroyed man. I think anything he knows about Benghazi he will reveal as he obviously has no reason to feel loyalty to the administration. Wheels within wheels. The funny thing about this type of scandal is that once it gets really rolling it is amazing what can come to light. Stay tuned.

  • I agree with Paul. This is all a distraction to get us talking about sex and Generals instead of death and Presidents.

  • It this is an attempted distration Jay then I think it is very poor tactics. I can think of few things the media relishes more than covering a sex scandal. Additionally I imagine there are quite a few high ranking officers suspecting that the Administration is using Petraeus and Allen as sacrificial lambs and I can imagine them now leaking material damgaging to the administration on Benghazi in retaliation. We are still in Act I of this play.

  • Patreaus’ book will be out in Jan…..I’m finding great difficulty in maintaining a Christian attitude…only by the grace of God.

  • What is most absurd is the apologists for Petraeus who have the temerity to call him “a genuine American hero” and a great general in the same high ranks of MacArthur, Patton and Ike. Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

  • I think Petraeus exercised generalship of a high order in regard to the Surge in Iraq and his military service should be honored. His theories on fighting insurgencies are innovative and proved successful in Iraq. However, these in no way diminish the dishonor of his affair, or the way in which it compromised national security.

  • Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

    I take it from your remarks that the only military officers meriting much respect were commanding generals during national mobilizations.

  • Look on the bright side.

    Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.

    from Hot air: “One piece of information that got lost the last few days of sex scandals is the news that David Petraeus personally traveled to Libya after the Benghazi attack — and apparently filed a “trip report” covering his own findings. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee probing the Benghazi terrorist attack, wants either the report or Petraeus to testify to its contents. So far, though, the CIA and the White House have refused to provide it — and yesterday, Feinstein threatened that subpoenas may be forthcoming if the stonewalling continues:”

    A modest proposal: If Petraeus refuses to testify and/or lies (they all lie), some Congress critter ought to add a rider to a bill that rescinds his six-figure pension.

    Dulce lifers inexpertis.

  • “Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.”

    Except I believe this administration is far more malevolent in its intentions, the press is far more complicit in those intentions and the public is more willing to accept what is coming.

  • Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.

  • I do not believe there were 25,000 pages of correspondence between him and any single individual.

  • “Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.”

    Agreed. Especially since this is likely orchestrated to protect him.

  • Not agreed. How this will play out we shall see when it plays out. The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.

  • I apologize in advance.

    And now, you know the reason “they” once referred to the USMC as the “Crotch.”

    I am so sorry.

  • “The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.”

    That was Edwards, not THE ONE.

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit. I would go so far as to say as Obama’s opponent, he had a duty to exploit it. But he punted. In addition to the scandal that is the Obama presidency, we also have what I think is the scandal of the weak, feckless, and irresponsible republican non-opposition.

  • Whatever success the Americans with Petraeus enjoyed in Iraq was due in large measure to the “cavalry of St George” and the inter-tribal conflicts of the Arabs . Hugh Fitzgerald covered this some time ago, See: .

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit…

    The inability of the Romney-Ryan duo to land any punches for all their shuffling must count as the main reason why they were unable to rouse any enthusiasm given the preexisting electoral divide. How did this pair manage to do worse than McCain/Palin who had to content with the Bush legacy?

    For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
    1 Corinthians 14:8

  • read “contend” in place of “content”

  • THe idea that President Obama didn’t know about the Patreaus affair until the day after the eclectiom is obvious BS. Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director, Obama had to know about it before he was even nominated as the country’s #1 Spook. Think about it, you don’t nominate someone as CIA Director without a thorough vetting process. Somehting like had to have surely come up. Even a cursory vetting would have revealed this affair. Oh, and don’t think for a minute Obama’s Thugocracy doesn’t vett their people. They do. They know who they are dealing with and what to hold against them.

  • If you’re confused by the whole Petraeus affair, click here for a handy graphic:

  • Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director,

    Some news reports contradict that.


Tuesday, November 13, AD 2012

The sixteenth in my ongoing series examining the poetry of Rudyard Kipling. The other posts in the series may be read here, here , here , herehere , here, here, here, here , here, here, here , here, here and here.

One of the great passions in the life of Kipling was English history.  Runnymede was one of several poems on English history he wrote for A School History of England (1911).  Another great passion of his was liberty, and in the poem Runnymede, Kipling combined both of these passions.  Whenever in English history some great struggle has arisen since 1215 the cry of Magna Carta has usually been raised.  The basis of English liberty, the Great Charter has an honored place both in English and American history.  To look at Magna Carta with a modern eye is initially to be disappointed, since much of it deals with disputes between his barons and King John  which, at first glance, lack any contemporary relevance.  However, the binding of the power of the government, and the restriction of the scope and power of the State, is of crucial importance today, as it is in all times and places.  There are passages additionally that do have a contemporary resonance:

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

It is no accident that Saint Thomas More referred to the passage in Magna Carta that guarantees the liberty of the Church  in his speech after his trial:

That Law was even contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom yet unrepealed, as might evidently be seen by Magna Charta, wherein are these Words; Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, & habet omnia jura integra, & libertates suas illcesas: And it is contrary also to that sacred Oath which the King’s Majesty himself, and every other Christian Prince, always take with great Solemnity, at their Coronations.

Continue reading...

204K Swing in Votes and Romney Would Have Been President

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

26 Responses to 204K Swing in Votes and Romney Would Have Been President

  • I have to wonder how many of the votes that Obama did get had been gotten via election fraud.

  • My rule of thumb Paul is that in any state with large cities the margin of fraud for Democrats is around three to five percent of their vote total. There is a reason why Democrats fight tooth and nail voter ID laws. In Illinois Chicago is traditionally very slow to report, presumably so the Democrats can manufacture the votes they need if the election is a squeaker.

  • Fox news reported that more Mormons voted for John McCain than Mitt Romney -is anyone buying that? What’s done is done – it’s just a tragedy for this country. I’m afraid that Obama’s tyranny will begin the collapse of our country. There are already rumbles in Texas about leaving the union. And if Texas moves, watch the southern states. Also Alaska. Nor do I think these are fringe movements. To escape the Federal leviathan, States will begin to take matters into their own hands when they feel they’ve been given no alternative.

  • I have seen no comments on the massive abstention rate – Compare this with the French press, full of dire predictions that the “missing 20%” in their Presidential election threatened the republican compact and the principles of ’89!

  • American turnout at elections MPS has never been that high. The American attitude has always been that people are free to vote, or not vote as they please. In certain Democrat enclaves, usually in urban centers, there does seem to be an ongoing concern for the dead exercising the franchise!

  • “American turnout at elections MPS has never been that high.”

    True, but with what was at stake here, with both sides predicting doom if the other won, to have millions of fewer voters than in 2008 is unbelievable.

  • I hate to burst this bubble. Abraham Lincoln ran the Civil War against the South with the mandate of 40% of the popular vote. Douglas, Breckenridge and Bell earned 60% of the 1860 American people’s votes.

    Obama’s electoral mandate is far superior to Lincoln’s. It empowers him to impose his legacy: the destructions (hyper-regulation and and confiscatory taxation) of both the evil, unjust private, market economy (private property is theft) and the United States of America.

    The red states need to secede. Obama needs to steal their wealth to bail out his base: bankrupt blue states: CA, IL, MI, NJ. NY, et al.

    If you have transferable personal property you need to cash out and emigrate to America, i.e., a red state.

  • Under normal circumstances, I would say we lost by just 204k votes. But given we had a president where every statistic worked against him in addition to his assaults on life, marriage, the Church, etc., the margin should have been much wider.

    Again, focusing on the whats and whys of the presidential race misses why the GOP lost. The losses go beyond Romney vs Obama. Conservatives lost at all levels. Blaming the presidential race loss on voter turnout, computer programs, etc does not explain why people voted for gay marriage, legitimizing marijuana, against government funding of abortion, etc. in addition to the senate losses.

    Some are trying to take comfort in the NYT interactive map that shows America pulling right because most counties voted more Republican than in 2008. I take no comfort in that map because it’s obvious those areas are tilting more right than 2008 because so many voted for Obama in 2008. The vote totals were already heavily weighted blue that by the time 2012 election came around, the most probable movement would be right. The numbers are misrepresenting reality.

    My attitude right now about Election 2012 is more in line with this guy…

    Also of interest if watching the George Wiegel interview on The World Over. They talk about the election and especially the Catholic vote. There is a part they talk about the impact of the bishops’ letters read from pulpits and the claim we need more and better catechesis. Neither are very effective if the intended audience is either not there to listen or refuse to listen. Why? See my previous link at Jewish World Review.

  • CORRECTION: But given we had a president where every statistic worked against him in addition to his assaults on life, marriage, the Church, etc., the winning margin should have been much wider.

  • “Conservatives lost at all levels.”

    Not in the House races. A wave election like 1994, 2006, 2008 and 2010 would have seen the House flip. This was a base turnout election and the Obama election team did a great job getting their voters to the poll, and the Romney campaign did a very poor job. Lets see how 2014 and 2016 goes before we begin to draw large conclusions from 2012.

  • “I hate to burst this bubble. Abraham Lincoln ran the Civil War against the South with the mandate of 40% of the popular vote. Douglas, Breckenridge and Bell earned 60% of the 1860 American people’s votes.”

    Lincoln had a solid majority in the North. The Republican party was excluded from the ballot in virtually all the Southern states.

    Secession worked so well in 1861-65. No thanks.

  • Before the election, Republicans held 242 seats and Democrats had 193, meaning at the very least, Democrats will gain at least 2 seats. If they win all 6 of the unresolved races, they’ll walk away from the 2012 election with a net gain of 8 seats.

    Democrat gains sounds like a loss to me.

  • Woulda shoulda coulda. If Romney ran as a real conservative, he would have been president. But he didn’t so he isn’t.

  • What of counting by controlled electronic means?

  • “Not in the House races.”

    There is no question that conservatism is alive and well at the congressional district level. Even Akin and Mourdock can operate safely at that level. Where it is having more problems is in the Senate and Presidential races. (NB I’m not stating that all Repubs ran as conservatives just that the voters perceive them that way and given their far left opponents it was true in a relative sense.)

    To repeat, the Senate Repub hopefuls ran well behind Romney in many states. Many people who voted for Romney proceeded to vote for a far left Senator. The disconnect is astounding. Voters in ND voted for a Dem who will support the EPA harassment of oil drilling lifting the state. Romney voters in FL voted for a Senator who is fine with the death panels and would have blocked the repeal of Obamacare. Romney voters in WV voted for a Senator who will support the EPA shutdown of the coal industry. Even the feeble Romney campaign did make an issue about oil, coal and energy independence.

    Will social conservatives turn out to vote when the Repubs rightly or wrongly use Akin and Mourdock as reasons why social conservatives must not be nominees? They didn’t even turn out in 2012 it seems.

  • “Democrat gains sounds like a loss to me.”

    Not really when you consider that the Republicans gained 63 seats in 2010 and thus had a huge number of new seats to defend. Additionally almost all the Dem overall gains are attributable to redistricting in Illinois and California.

  • The vote margins hardly make for any mandate for the Obama agenda.

  • “Lincoln had a solid majority in the North. The Republican party was excluded from the ballot in virtually all the Southern states.”

    Had Lincoln been on a ballot anywhere in the South, he would have received exactly as many votes as would have Lester Maddox in Harlem, NY in 1960.

    The five and six-figure (that’s tens-of and hundreds-of-thousands for liberals and media geniuses) margins of victory in the swing states are well within the fraud range.

    Not in NH. Way more than 40,659 liberals escared from Taxachussets and live tax-free in NH, and apparently vote democrat.

    Likely, the Alinskyites stole the election for Obama and revenge.

  • Ron Paul stated it correctly when, the day before the election, he declared that “regardless of the outcome, the status quo will win”. I was proud that Dr. Paul did not bow to pressure and endorse the war-mongering collectivist Romney over the war-mongering collectivist Obama.

    It is interesting to note that, to use an example, Dr. Paul received over 117K votes in the Florida Republican primary. Obama’s margin of victory in FL was, according to this story, just under 74K. Nearly all Ron Paul voters I know, besides being angry and disillusioned at their treatment by the Republican Party/Romney campaign, would decline to vote for a tried and true statist like Romney.

    Given the numbers, in addition to FL, the “Ron Paul factor” very well may have cost Romney VA, OH, and NH. Do the math and you will see that had Romney won these four states, he would have won the electoral college. Extrapolate this to other close states, add in disillusioned Democrats who would have voted for Ron Paul, and you might have your answer to the question of “Why”.

  • “Had Lincoln been on a ballot anywhere in the South, he would have received exactly as many votes as would have Lester Maddox in Harlem, NY in 1960.”

    We will never know T.Shaw since the powers that be in the South did not trust their own people enough to allow Lincoln’s name to appear on the ballot. Perhaps that also explains why in most Southern states it was a criminal offense to publish abolitionist material. It wasn’t only slaves that had their freedom severely circumscribed in the South prior to the Civil War.

  • “the “Ron Paul factor” very well may have cost Romney VA, OH, and NH.”

    I would be more than happy to extend to Ron Paul (R. Pluto) a fair amount of the blame for the harm that Obama does in the next four years, but I can’t because he simply was not a significant factor in the outcome of the election, just as he was not a significant factor in the outcome of the primaries, Paulite delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

  • As Stalin once stated, “its not the votes that count, but who is counting the votes”. There are numerous questions in my mind and red flags should be raised when Romney got zero votes in 59 precints in Philadelphia and even more where Romney got one vote? And these irregularities only seemed to have occured in the battleground states. Many voting machines over and over again kept going for Obama when the voter hit Romney. And how is it that in many precincts there were more votes cast than registered voters? Something is fishy in Dodge if you ask me. Did Romney really lose???

  • It’s a strange thing to read through these comments. Lots of blame to go around. Some blame Ron aul (who wasn’t even the ballot.

    But a LOT of people blame voter fraud – despite the fact that the outcome was almost exactly what the polls predicted. I suppose the polls were all biased and skewed, too.

    The fact remains that a majority of Catholic voters went for Obama. To me, this means it’s more complicated than fraud or blame or making the Catholic Church a wing of the Republican Party.

  • “But a LOT of people blame voter fraud”

    Oh that there was an immense amount of fraud I have no doubt. For example the 59 Philadelphia inner precincts that reported not one vote for Romney, or the 11 Philadelphia precincts where court appointed Republican poll watchers were physically tossed out and the same precincts reported 99% for Obama.

    Without more proof I would not argue that fraud is the reason why Obama was reelected, but the fraud this time around was blatant and widespread.

    “despite the fact that the outcome was almost exactly what the polls predicted.”

    Actually the polls were all over the lot, with a wide divergence among the national polls.

    “The fact remains that a majority of Catholic voters went for Obama.”

    I think the breakdown was 50-48 with most “White” Catholics voting for Romney and most “Hispanic” Catholics voting for Obama. One would have hoped that all Catholics would have voted to toss out the most anti-Catholic administration in the nation’s history, but hope was in short supply last election day as I suspect it will be throughout this nation for the next four years.

  • These people will confiscate or destroy all you have.

    Plan and prepare.

    Do whatever you can to protect your family in the coming financial and societal cataclysm.

    The Mayan December 2012 end time prophesy is explained: The stars foretold the idiots would re-elect Obama.

Militia Immediately Prior to the American Revolution

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

In the first post in this series on militia in the American Revolution, which may be read here, we looked at American militia in the Colonial period. In the years following the French and Indian War, as Great Britain and her colonies increasingly clashed, several of the colonies began to beef up their militias as an armed clash with Great Britain moved from unthinkable to likely. Massachusetts took the lead in this process with the formation of minutemen companies. This was not an innovation. The Massachusetts militia had fielded minutemen companies since 1645. These were young men, no more than 30, chosen for their physical strength and endurance, and formed into picked companies.

The necessity for putting the Massachusetts militia on a war footing was underlined in 1774. General Thomas Gage was appointed military governor of Massachusetts in early 1774. He embarked on a campaign to disarm the Massachusetts militia. In an event that is largely forgotten today but was a huge event throughout the colonies in 1774, on September 1, 1774 Gage sent an expedition of British troops to seized the powder at the arsenal located in Sommerville, Massachusetts. The British succeeded in their mission and almost started the Revolutionary War. Militia units formed up in alarm throughout Massachusetts and surrounding colonies in New England, thinking that a war had begun while wild rumors flew, and it was several days before calm was restored. This Powder Alarm caused the militia in Massachusetts and the colonies to take steps to protect their arsenals for fear of a deliberate British policy to disarm them and leave them helpless before the redcoats. The stage was set for Lexington and Concord.

Continue reading...

One Response to Militia Immediately Prior to the American Revolution

  • “General Thomas Gage was appointed military governor of Massachusetts in early 1774. He embarked on a campaign to disarm the Massachusetts militia.”

    May be the reason so-called progressives have been trying to judicially repeal the Second Amendment for most of the past 100 years. Destitue, disarmed depressed dependents are easier to control.

Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

The truth about the Benghazi debacle keeps coming out drip by drip:

1.  Paula Knows-At the beginning of the post we see the alleged mistress of David Petraeus telling an audience at a symposium in late October this bombshell:

 “A group of Delta Force operators are very…the most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and CIA annex that were under attack,” said Ms. Broadwell. “Now I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.”

This is the first I have heard about this.  Was Petraeus sharing highly classified information with his paramour?

2.  Video Schmideo-The above detail from the mouth of Broadwell makes nonsense of the administration claim that the Mohammed video caused this.  That was a lie and the Administration knew it was a lie.

3.  Libyan Prisoners-Libyan prisoners?  What sort of involvement is the administration getting us into in Libya?  The CIA has denied this, but right now I will take the word of the alleged mistress of the former CIA Director over that of the CIA flack who issued the denial.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

  • The scandal deepens. And we have no Cicero.

  • The timing of all this is beyond clumsy. Three days after the election, and a week before Petraeus is to testify? Please. And what did Holder know? The stench is repulsive.

  • 1. Likely pillow-talk obtained classifed information.

    2. This is distraction from the dastardly roles Obama, Clinton, et al played in refusing to save the ambassador and the others.

    3. They Were Expendable.

    4. “I will not lie, cheat or steal; nor tolerate those that do.” BARF

    5. Four more years of apologies, appeasements, lies (“sworn to” by the academy and the media), and surrenders.

    6. It don’t mean nothing.

  • I’ll give you that the Administration orchestrated a delay in his resignation for purely political ends. However, I don’t see the benefit to the Administration, with regards to Benghazi, by his resignation. Doesn’t he still have to testify before Congress?

    The Benghazi story is far from being told and I’m sure it will not reflect well on the Administration (they haven’t crowed about it so there is something disqueting that they’d rather not have revealed). However, I’m not willing to read into Petreaus’ resignation at this point. It looks like a conjunction of unrelated events.

  • The problem G-Veg is that we still do not have a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in regard to Benghazi to judge how this Petraeus resignation plays out, and we do not know, yet, what other factors may be in play as to all of this. Benghazi may be a distraction for other things that Petraeus knows that he may reveal under questioning. The other thing I can’t fathom is why keep him on as CIA Director for several months. Surely the political risk of having Petraeus resign in the summer for example would have been minimal.

  • I think the answer lies in the exclusive focus on polls and campaigning throught his first term.

    Perhaps none of this makes sense because we are looking at it through the lens of governance rather than campaigning. Without a pesky media presence, there was no risk that keeping corrupt figures would blow up before the election and that made Holder, Napolitano, and Petreaus known quantities and their mistakes fairly harmless… Unless they weren’t under thumb that is.

  • Do you think the Roman citizen on the dole cared about the shenanigans of the emperor and his cronies in far off places? The deaths of the four may be criminally negligent and grotesque but Obama voters don’t care in any meaningful way. They care about the dole or about bureaucratic jobs dispensing the dole.

    In other words, this is not going to be a political game changer although Obama’s poll numbers may briefly go down a few points (46% vs 49%).

  • Poor analogy Rozin. Only a small minority of the Roman people were ever on the Dole, almost entirely located in the City of Rome, and by the Empire the mob in Rome had lost any political significance in any case.

    Oh, Benghazi alone won’t cause Obama that much of a problem, although his attempted cover up might. However, if Obama’s second term follows the usual pattern it will be the first of many scandals. Tie that in with a bad economy, and ever increasing, and clearly unsustainable deficits, and I think the draining of Obama’s support will continue apace.

  • I hope that the revelation of scandals continues to the point where even a Democratic Senate cannot ignore the need for impeachment.

  • I forgot too add: “drip – drip – drip”. It there are enough drips, then the bucket will fill.

  • A lot of hand wringing leading to naught except maybe the loss of an underling job or two. The general public doesn’t care. The GOP doesn’t have the courage or fortitude to take it where it needs to go.

    Net result: Noise and flashing lights to entertain conservatives.

  • I believe that was what was said about the Congressional post office scandal before 1994. Large events often have small beginnings.

  • I agree that the GOP lacks the intestinal fortitude for a fight and I’d add that even where thay have gone to battle, it feels inept…

    Why is that? I wonder if part of the problem isn’t that the GOP doesn’t want to take really significant shots at this Imperial Presidency because they want to preserve those unconstitutional powers wrested from Congress for when they re-take the Executive Branch.

    Let me state it differently:

    The Constitution places the Legislative Branch in the steongest position, resting the most significant powers of government in its hands. The Executive Branch is made equal to the Legislative Branch through its power to appoint judges and Justices.

    Over the last 20 years or so, we have seen Congress diminish and the Executive assume greater authority. Boehner said the pther day “we (meaning Congress) need to be led. And Congress after Congress has sat back and let the Executive direct them. In essence, Congress has turned the Balance of Powers on its head, treating the president like he is a Prime Minister and our system as though it was designed to be parliamentarian.

    Why? I fear that the answer is because both parties have concluded that this is as it should be and that striking back and taking back Legislative authority would cut them off from those same unlawful tools when they assume the power of President. Thus, their concern between presidential elections is solely to set the groundwork for their party’s attempt to win the Presidential election, not to govern themselves.

  • I wish it was 1994.

    Whatever become of the constitutional scandal, the Obama recess appointments? I see the GOP is right on top of it.

    Go get’em GOP!

    Meanwhile, the top dog, Obama, and his mutts press on with ruining a people and a nation.

  • It is hard to claim the high ground with dirty hands. We need to get our house straight and reclaim a solid, constitutional basis for governance before we can articulate a constitutionally sound plan for reclaiming America.

    As long as we are willing to say or do anything o get power, our party will lack the legitimacy and Providence to win. God does not empower the bad unless it is to correct the reclaimable. He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.

  • “He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.”

    It is always good to act rightly in the eyes of God. I would not take that as either a necessary factor, or a dispositive factor, for political success, as the ways of God are often inscrutable when it comes to secular matters. As Lincoln said, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”

  • Mr McClarey,

    I didn’t want to clutter up a post with the factoids you added. You are making the point not disputing it. The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire. It was the provincials not on the dole who took over both militarily as emperors and bureaucratically as with the rapid expansion of the equestrian class in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

    However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing. It started out in the inner cities but the Left realized that was a loser particularly after Reagan. So now we have the (unmentionable) percentage either on the dole or bureaucratically dispensing it. NV and CA have very high unemployment yet happily voted for Obama. CA even got rid of the few Repubs left in the state because they are so happy with the job the Dems are doing. Europe has had chronically high unemployment for decades but is staunchly socialist. (And why is it you salute the House post office scandal rather than Hillarycare and tax hikes as the reason for Repub majorities? Absent the post office scandal what difference would it have made?)

  • Here is an aspect of the e-mail investigation that I don’t understand: Why did the FBI continue looking into it at all?

    Donald linked (in #5 above) to a Slate article, which had linked to a Washington Post article. The Washington Post article says, law enforcement officials interviewed “said the e-mails were ‘threatening and harassing’ but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.”

    So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?

    And, once it was traced back to Broadwell – still assuming that there was nothing warranting criminal charges – why go through all of Broadwell’s personal, private email that exposed the Petraeus link?

    If the original anonymous emails weren’t threatening enough for criminal charges, how did this investigation continue from the get-go?

    I’m not trying to claim that there is a hidden agenda behind the email investigation … yet. I really don’t understand how it went from “not enough to warrant criminal charges” to “let’s go through Broadwell’s personal, private email account”.

    Maybe someone with a good understanding of how investigations of cyberstalking work can explain it to me?

  • “So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?”

    The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

  • “The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire.”
    That is because Italy under the Empire as a whole contributed few men to the Roman legions. The greatest role played by the mob of Rome in Roman affairs coincided with the advent of the dole in the late second century and the first century before Christ when the Roman poor formed the “head-count” armies of Marius, prior to that time they had been considered to be too poor to be enlisted, and took boisterous, and often murderous, part in elections in Rome. After the military dictatorship of Augustus was firmly established the elections still took place but they were meaningless since Augustus controlled the legions and thus the state. None of this history fits very well with the jeremiads launched against “bread and circuses” by modern day conservatives since the fall of the Republic had virtually nothing to do with the dole and everything thing to do with the competition of aristocrats which led to endless civil wars and the breakdown of the old Republican order.

    Our modern welfare states are a different matter altogether and we live in a time when they are manifestly breaking down for lack of funds. Rather than marking the beginning of a new order, Obama and his expansion of the welfare state is the last gasp of a reactionary societal model that is nearing its end.

  • The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

    Thanks, Donald. That answers a question I had. So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal, some judge decided to allow the FBI to search a private email account.

    If the threshold is that low, then what’s to stop the FBI/local law enforcement searching someone’s email account for a “harassing” comment in a blog comment? Nothing criminal, mind you; just “harassing”.

  • “So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal,”

    No it was not clear to the Judge or a warrant would not have been issued. Here we have an anonymous individual making threats to an innocent third party. It would not take much for a judge under these circumstances to agree that the FBI should be allowed to investigate futher to determine the identity of the anonymous person and whether they posed a danger to the third party. If charges were pressed the Defendant could attempt to challenge the warrant on any number of grounds including lack of probable cause.

  • Well, I understand what you’re saying, but I think there’s more to the story than that.

    The Washington Post story says that “three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode” determined the threats weren’t specific enough for criminal charges. So, why ask for a warrant?

    As your update indicates, we’re at the tip of the iceberg.

    Thanks for indulging my questions, and for a very informative (and entertaining) blog.

  • With respect Don, I do not agree with your assessment if by your statement you mean that God does not extend or withhold his favor from peoples in accordance with His Plan.

    Perhaps I misread you though.

    Certainly Washington believed that Providence was visited upon the nation at her inception. Given the extraordinary turns of events, it is not difficult to see the hand of God in the twists of history that brought our Republic into being.

    If you mean that we can’t see whoch events are providential and which are not, I entirely agree. But, that we can’t see His actions hardly indicates that they are not present.

    Again, the Old Testament repeats he tale of God showering Grace on a people while the acknowledge Him and then withdrawing His blessings when they set Him aside. I see the same pattern over the last 2000 years in the West.

  • I tend to take a rather Job-like view of the purposes and actions of God G-Veg:

    “42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

    2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

    3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

    4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

    5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

    6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

    That God has His purposes I am sure. That in studying History I find these purposes often obscure to me, I am also sure. When it comes to God faith is always my guide when my discernment fails me.

  • Donald is right again. However, in spite of all its inaccuracy, I like how The Message translation renders this section of Sacred Scripture:

    42 1-6 Job answered God:

    “I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything.
        Nothing and no one can upset your plans.
    You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,
        ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’
    I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,
        made small talk about wonders way over my head.
    You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.
        Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’
    I admit I once lived by rumors of you;
        now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!
    I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!
        I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”

  • However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing.

    Federal welfare expenditure can be categorized as follows (approximately):

    44% cash pensions for the elderly and disabled
    24% medical benefits for the elderly and disabled
    9% medical benefits for the generally impecunious
    5% financing of nursing home care
    5% temporary unemployment compensation
    13% various

    The burgeoning of this sort of expenditure is driven by demographic factors and some of the unfortunate effects of poorly structured programs on the way the medical sector does business. These problems can be addressed, but first someone has to be willing to tell the public that first-dollar coverage of medical expenses is not economically sustainable.

    It is really the last category above which is socially problematic, and, no, it was not ‘growing rapidly’ until the advent of the current administration. The most problematic programs (public housing and cash doles for women with bastard children) are a good deal less consequential than was the case a generation ago (enrollment in TANF was at one point one-third in number enrolled in its predecessor program 15 years ago, in spite of the increase in population in the interim).

  • G.K. Chesterton said ”once abolish the God and the government becomes god.” I am not the first to note that many in the West have replaced God with government. Certainly putting one’s faith in government is as much a violation of the First Commandment as putting faith in wealth or intellect or strength is. I am suggesting that the Bible contains ample evidence that a people is as beholden to God as any individual and that individually or collectively, we rebel against God at our own peril.

    The Psalms affirm the idea that there is a relationship between a people’s faithfulness and God’s Providence. (E.g. see Ps. 5, 33, and 67) This was true in the beginning for we see in Genesis, God making covenants with Abraham to give him a blessed people – not only to bless him individually if he followed God’s commands but that his progeny would benefit from his faithfulness. In Gen. 39, we see this promise continued in Joseph. God blesses the people because of Joseph’s faithfulness.

    It isn’t just a tangential concept either. It is an idea at the center of the salvation story. God is explicit in the connection between a people’s faithfulness and His blessings in Deuteronomy 7:13 and in Deut. 8 the consequences of forgetting Him. In the New Testament we see Providence bestowed in abundance on the fledgling church because of their faithfulness.

    In Acts 2: 46-47 we are told that “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” because of the behavior of the Church. This fits Christ’s promise in Matthew 6:33 that if we seek “first the kingdom of God” he will provide everything we need, echoing Zechariah 3:7-9. Again and again in the Bible we are told that, if a people follows God’s laws they will be blessed. (Jeremiah 7:5-7) We are even told that we can reclaim His favor by turning from sin – as a people mind ye – for “if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.” (2 Chron. 7-14) The whole point of Jonah is precisely this and Ninevah avoids Sodom’s fate by turning from evil as a community.

    All I’m saying is that we cannot, as a people, directly push God away and still expect everything to be OK. It doesn’t work that way.